Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:45:15 EST
From: Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Selfish Gavaskar & Shastri
 <93024.230719SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu> <C1FKFF.396@uceng.uc.edu>

In article <C1FKFF.396@uceng.uc.edu>, bnataraj@uceng.uc.edu (Bhaskar Natarajan)
says:
>
>In article <93024.230719SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu> Spaceman Spiff
><SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>many, you are so dumb that dan quayle could take lessons from you.
>
>        There is no need for this.
i agree. i had a hard day at school and i blew my top.
>
>>the only reason india came back to tie the hockey match was because west
>>germany took off their best few players. bills won because they got a few
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>        They tanked the match you mean ?? BTW, do you acknowledge that
>        India TRIED ??

no they didn't tank the match. they understandably felt pretty confident
with a four goal lead with nine minutes to go and i guess they decided to
give their younger players some exposure. india took advantage of it, and i
was as thrilled with the tie as anyone else. but the thing is, field games
like hockey and football can be turned around by a couple of big plays.
this is not the case in cricket (while batting). it needs a sustained
effort (especially when chasing a big score), and when there is a major
hiccup early on (e.g. loss of two early wickets), it is pretty difficult
to get back on track. gavaskar's role in the indian ODI team has never
been that of a slogger. rather he has provided stability at one end while
the better pure hitters on the team did the bulk of the scoring.
>
>        Agreed there is no parallel between the two games, but anyone could
>see that there was a PALPABLE difference in the attitude of the Indians
>(rather between Azad in the day-night and Gavaskar in **that farce of a
>match**
sure there was a palpable difference. in the d/n match india still had a
chance, requiring 100 runs in about 20 overs when azad and madanlal got
together. in the jam match, it was reduced to a farce when the first two wicket
s fell early and the no. 4 batsman couldn't get going early. gavaskar has
never been the type of batsman who could score 7 runs/over off his own bat.
if he had tried that and been dismissed, india would have been left with
no chance rather than a small (albeit infinitesmal) chance.
see my follow-up to skumar's post for more details about the indian innings.

>        The situation in that game for India was no different than what
>the Sri Lankans faced when we smashed 300 in 40 overs... the difference
>was that they went down with their guns blazing !  (If i'm right the Windies
>scored 345-4odd in 45-47 odd overs... a RR reqd. of 7.5 odd at the BEGINNING
>of the game. The RR reqd. went 8+ in the 10th over and was out of reach
>by over 20. That is why, ACTION was needed (much like Mahanama and Gurusinghe
>gave in that Bombay match) and not a sheet anchor role. GEEEEZ !
>
mahanama scored about 89 in about 95 balls. gavaskar scored 83 in 96 balls.
is there such a big difference? how come noone is picking on the other
indian batsmen for not trying?

>        And just look at stats and you'll see that it was NOT the Pace Attack
>of WI that operated in the bigger chunk of the inning !
i just did, and the WI pacers bowled 32 of the 45 overs.

>
>        And do you prefer we lose by 200 runs after trying or 100 runs
>without trying ?
i remember a few years ago when OZ scored about 300+ vs SL and SL decide to
"go for it" from the beginning and wound up with about 70 all out. now that
looked real good.(apologies to sri lankans on the net if this seems disparaging
to chase such a large total, you need more than your fair share of luck, and
SL just didn't have it one that day. of course, SL has an excellent record
chasing large scores otherwise.)
i'd rather we didn't lose at all, but if we had to lose i'd rather that the
margin be as less embarassing as possible.

>
>>>In a limited overs either you win or lose,
>>no shit, sherlock!
>
>        Look, there is no need for this. Why do we have to get personal ?
come on, this is not getting personal. this is just a gentle leg-pull.
like if you say that pakistan has a pretty good pace attack and i would say
"no shit, sherlock". its a response to someone stating the obvious.

Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Non illegitimati carborundum          Don't let the bastards get you down