Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:11:27 EST
From: Spaceman Spiff <SXK129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Selfish Gavaskar & Shastri

In article <C1F8w9.5Mw@acsu.buffalo.edu>, skumar@acsu.buffalo.edu (Shivesh
Kumar) says:
>
>: in the first case, even tho' wickets fell early, the runs required was still
>: very gettable 100 in about 20-odd overs. the required run rate never went
>over               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                 Junk your memory
>
o.k. let's look at the stats. when the 6th wicket fell, india had scored 80
in about 25 overs. runs required 118 in about 25 overs (^4.7 r/o). when the
7 wicket fell, the score was 101 in about 32 overs. runs required 97 in 18
overs (^5.4). both very gettable targets. especially as kirti azad's
partner was madanlal who had just come off scoring a fine 74 in a test
match, ergo, he could bat a bit. (madanlal's 1st class best is 223).
i find it difficult to believe that the required run rate ever approached
the fanciful 12 r/o you mentioned or even that it crossed 8 r/o
in the jamshedpur match, the asking rate was 7.5 before the innings ever
started. when the second wicket fell, it had gone over 8, with over 35 overs
to go. gavaskar has never been the kind of batsman who slogs arbitrarly.
rather he provides stability at one end while the better scorers chase the
target. how come you aren't criticising the other indian batsmen? srikkanth
made a strokeful 3 runs, amarnath a blazing 16 runs, arun lal a fighting
duck, malhotra made 65 in 70 balls, kapil 44 in about 40 and binny a masterful
12. very few of them scored at all, and those who did, didn't do it at a
match-winning pace. yet its gavaskar who catches the flak for the poor indian
performance. like i said, gavaskar has never been a great ODI batsman. at most,
he has been a competent one and usually played a supporting role.
>
>People like you would make good sportsman I believe!!! If target is gettable
>(say 140 in 20 overs) then go for it otherwise just keep sitting hoping that
>you might get few calls in your favour or maybe the opponent take off their
>good players...otherwise impossible to win so only try reducing margin...!!
>
please don't twist my words. all i said was that it was easier to score
140 in 20 overs than 350 in 50. sure, go for the 350, but its pretty
unlikely that you're going to get there. in the history of ODI's a team
has successfully chased a score of over 300 only once. there's a message
there- its nigh near impossible to score over 300 in the 2nd innings and
win. of course, you're welcome to try.

>I would appreciate if people with such sporting spirit refrain from responding
>to my articles.
>
aha, anything you post on the net is fair game.
but lets drop the argument right here. you have your opinion and i have mine.
experience has taught me that thats the best way to close an argument and i
think thats what we should do now.
sorry, net.at.large for boring you guys with this stuff (unless, of course,
that you enjoyed it- which is highly unlikely. i personally enjoy reading
other peoples flame wars- but i guess that's just me)

Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Non illegitimati carborundum          Don't let the bastards get you down
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket