Sachin Tendulkar

[HarryPotter]

Why is the innings itself not like one of Trotts?

[meninblue]

They are incomparable because of the differences in the batting line-ups. Trott doesn't have people who follow him with the same ability to really kick on. Raina, Dhoni, Rohit and IKP were still to come. With a huge amount of wickets in hand, India should have managed higher than what they finished on, but that was not necessarily to do with SRT's innings. Dhoni was not as destructive as he normally is in the last five overs of the game and arguably 20-30 runs were lost there. The thing about lost runs is that they are nothing, insignificant and merely hypothesis. However, with the score that was posted, how anyone can blame a lack of runs is beyond me.

People are blaming him. It is not a Trott v. Sachin debate as clearly there is only one winner, Sachin. Trott gets blamed unnecessarily at times, sometimes justifiably, but to suggest that this innings was at all like one of Trott's based on SR alone is a bit much.

One innings Sachin has scored at lower strike rate and the world is upside down. It's not as if he scored all those tons @ SR less than 80.

We have forgotten that Virat also scored @ SR of 80, so did Gautam and three Bangladesh top order batsmen. Only the middle order batsmen of both teams had a SR over 125. So clearly they thought platform was important in posting and chasing a competitive score and the top orders played cautiously.

[braveneutral]

Why is the innings itself not like one of Trotts?

Because an innings is not defined by Strike Rate - otherwise they would be synonyms.

[braveneutral]

Adi, my point exactly!

[HarryPotter]

Why is the innings itself not like one of Trotts?

Because an innings is not defined by Strike Rate - otherwise they would be synonyms.

Essentially cricket is a results game. The number of runs off the number of balls in the context of the team total and the result of the game is exactly what defines an innings.

That personal total, off that number of balls in the context of a team total around 280 is exactly the definition of the type of innings that Trott gets criticised for.

I am not saying that criticism is fair or otherwise, I am saying that Sachins innings yesterday is very comparable to a Trott innings.

[HarryPotter]

And no one is suggesting that one Trott like innings makes Sachin and Trott the same type or standard of player. No one is saying all Sachins innings are like that. There is not even widespread criticism of the innings.

It was however a Trott like innings in result and context. Suggesting otherwise implies criticism of Trott and seems rather over sensitive tbh: whats wrong with playing a Trott like innings, shouldn't Sachin be pleased and complimented in this, especially on recent form?

[braveneutral]

Why is the innings itself not like one of Trotts?

Because an innings is not defined by Strike Rate - otherwise they would be synonyms.

Essentially cricket is a results game. The number of runs off the number of balls in the context of the team total and the result of the game is exactly what defines an innings.

That personal total, off that number of balls in the context of a team total around 280 is exactly the definition of the type of innings that Trott gets criticised for.

I am not saying that criticism is fair or otherwise, I am saying that Sachins innings yesterday is very comparable to a Trott innings.

No it is not, do you even read people's responses before posting? India has wickets in hand with four or five big hitters sitting in the shed. India tends to build an innings before kicking off towards the end. Typically the last ten overs are the biggest. They were in a position when Sachin was out to score more than what they scored based of previous performance. Whilst every team tends to accelerate as the game goes on, India often do it more extremely than others. Add to the fact that Trott does not have these world class big hitters to rely on, his innings' are slightly different, because they become the defining moment of the innings whereas for India, they provide a base to go on. If you can't see that two innings with exactly the same statistics can be completely different in both impact and importance, then I don't think that you have ever watched a game of cricket in your life.

And no one is suggesting that one Trott like innings makes Sachin and Trott the same type or standard of player. No one is saying all Sachins innings are like that. There is not even widespread criticism of the innings.

It was however a Trott like innings in result and context. Suggesting otherwise implies criticism of Trott and seems rather over sensitive tbh: whats wrong with playing a Trott like innings, shouldn't Sachin be pleased and complimented in this, especially on recent form?

Yes, there is a huge amount of criticism of the innings at the moment. I would be insulted if I was Sachin, and someone said I was like Trott.

[ddb]

/thread

[HarryPotter]

Why is the innings itself not like one of Trotts?

Because an innings is not defined by Strike Rate - otherwise they would be synonyms.

Essentially cricket is a results game. The number of runs off the number of balls in the context of the team total and the result of the game is exactly what defines an innings.

That personal total, off that number of balls in the context of a team total around 280 is exactly the definition of the type of innings that Trott gets criticised for.

I am not saying that criticism is fair or otherwise, I am saying that Sachins innings yesterday is very comparable to a Trott innings.

No it is not, do you even read people's responses before posting? India has wickets in hand with four or five big hitters sitting in the shed. India tends to build an innings before kicking off towards the end. Typically the last ten overs are the biggest. They were in a position when Sachin was out to score more than what they scored based of previous performance. Whilst every team tends to accelerate as the game goes on, India often do it more extremely than others. Add to the fact that Trott does not have these world class big hitters to rely on, his innings' are slightly different, because they become the defining moment of the innings whereas for India, they provide a base to go on. If you can't see that two innings with exactly the same statistics can be completely different in both impact and importance, then I don't think that you have ever watched a game of cricket in your life.

And no one is suggesting that one Trott like innings makes Sachin and Trott the same type or standard of player. No one is saying all Sachins innings are like that. There is not even widespread criticism of the innings.

It was however a Trott like innings in result and context. Suggesting otherwise implies criticism of Trott and seems rather over sensitive tbh: whats wrong with playing a Trott like innings, shouldn't Sachin be pleased and complimented in this, especially on recent form?

Yes, there is a huge amount of criticism of the innings at the moment. I would be insulted if I was Sachin, and someone said I was like Trott.

Which is one of a whole myriad of reasons why you are nothing like Sachin. I am sure he would be happy to compared to one of only two players to have the record that Trott shares.

Lets agree to disagree, its mearly opinion not fact and I like Sachin too much to be dragged into an arguement that will only result in pointless polarised views, Sachin threads always do.

My final point is that Lara was better than Sachin anyway.

As was Flower.

[braveneutral]

If you wish to insult me, please don't be vague about it.

[HarryPotter]

You would rather I was direct like you were in insulting me in the previous posts?

I thought that that was against the rules so I was avoiding it.

I also think it lacks class.

(again too vague??)

[braveneutral]

Yes please do.

[HarryPotter]

I am not here to insult anyone...whats the point in that?

I am here to discuss cricket and have enjoyed doing so with you today...why would I insult you anyway?

[ddb]

[HarryPotter]

Have you got a pink one?