|
The g word
How does one define greatness in an innings?
November 16, 2008
 |
|
Great batsmen do not play great innings all the time, while even the most ordinary batsman is capable of one great innings that becomes a part of the folklore of the game. Sport has debased the word "great" through overuse; it is convenient, crisp, and to the great delight of headline writers, has only five letters. As a bonus, it rhymes with other sporting staples such as "fate", "late", "rate", "wait" and so on.
What makes a great innings? Lots of runs, obviously, made against top bowlers bowling on a track helpful to them, with the team in desperate trouble and while overcoming a physical handicap. You could throw into the mix such qualities as perfection of shot selection and execution, the impression the batsman gives of playing "on another planet" from the rest of his team-mates, the manner in which the batsman seems to transcend the technique of the game as well as the laws of physics. Needless to say, the more the entries in the criteria column, the fewer the candidates for the "great" innings.
In Ralph Barker's Ten Great Innings, many of the above conditions are met, even if not all of them in the same innings. There is the story of Eddie Paynter returning from hospital with tonsillitis, refusing a runner, and making 83 for England in four hours. There is mention, too, of Stan McCabe's magnificent 187 not out in the Bodyline series, and his even more magnificent 232 in the opening Test against England in 1938.
A similar modern list would include VVS Laxman's 281, which helped India win a Test in Kolkata after following on against Australia (a Test that also threw up a candidate for the best supporting role by an actor in a drama: Rahul Dravid with 180). That knock was anointed by Wisden Asia Cricket magazine, as the finest by an Indian.
Left out of the list of attributes, sharp readers might notice, is the result of the match. Not all great innings lead to team victories. That is in keeping with one of the conceits of the game that the result is incidental when the performance is transcendental. In his Great Innings, Peter Roebuck throws the net further back, and comes up with 50 innings. There's Arthur Shrewsbury of 1886 vintage, McCabe is there too, as are modern heroes like Derek Randall.
A perfect innings (if such a thing exists) is not necessarily a great one. This leads to a whole new set of definitions, but I like best the one provided by Mohammad Azharuddin. Against New Zealand in Auckland in 1990, he made a charming 192. The outfield was a brilliant green, and the sight of the ball racing to the fence very short square boundaries, since the ground is shaped like a diamond will not be easily shaken off by those who were there. It was Azharuddin's eighth Test century, and he said at the end of it why he enjoyed it so much: "Every ball went where I wanted it to go."
Yes, but an ageing Richard Hadlee apart, it was not a great attack (Atul Wassan made 53 from No. 10), and there was little pressure. Azhar's 121 in his next Test, at Lord¹s, was, rightly, given a higher rating.
In the next series, an 18-year-old boy made 114 at Perth. Many still consider that the best of Sachin Tendulkar's 37 Test centuries; not great, but just a shade under, for it involved yet another criterion the age of the batsman. Tendulkar became the youngest player to make a Test century in Australia. The match was lost; many others that saw great innings were drawn.
Two of the best innings were played in different causes, one in a defensive draw, and the other in a run-chase. The first, Hanif Mohammad¹s 337 in more than 16 hours, held West Indies at bay after Pakistan had replied to their 579 for 9 declared with a miserable 106. The other, Sunil Gavaskar's 221 at the Oval two decades later, in 1979, brought India to the doorstep of victory.
One of the charms of the game is that it is impossible to compare great performances except emotionally. Yet the following, written by Len Hutton in Fifty Years in Cricket, says something: "Gavaskar's 221 at the Oval should, at the very least, be bracketed with Stan McCabe's 232 at Trent Bridge and Wally Hammond's 240 at Lord's."
Suresh Menon is a writer based in Bangalore. This article was first published in the print edition of Cricinfo Magazine in 2006
Feeds: Suresh Menon
| Comments have now been closed for this article |
||||||
Top
Suresh Menon went from being a promising cricketer to a has-been, without the intervening period of a major career. He played league cricket in three cities with a group of overgrown enthusiasts who had the reverse of amnesia - they could remember things that never happened. For example, taking incredible catches at slip, or scoring centuries. Somehow Menon found the time to be the sports editor of the Pioneer and the Indian Express in New Delhi, Gulf News in Dubai, and the editor of the New Indian Express in Chennai. Currently he is a columnist with publications in India and abroad, and is beginning to think he might never play for India.
Access your Indian Rupee earnings from anywhere in the world.
Who is the best footballer in Europe?
Debate now on the new ESPN Soccernet Castrol Rankings Blog
FREE Cricket DVD offer at Cricshop
Cricshop.com - leading online cricket store
Rugby Union Autumn Internationals coverage
on www.scrum.com
I feel that the true test of a great innings or a great cricketer is how the opposition judges the innings. I agree with the views of many writers that more often than not one's judgement may be clouded if we have a favourite batsman or a favourite team and hence it is important to know the views of the bowlers who bowled to the batsman to judge if it was a great innings. Hence I wrote the comments of Tony Cozier in the Indian Express on January 13, 1973. Tony Cozier is an ardent admirer of West Indian cricket and players and for him to write that article was really a pointer about the greatness of the innings. n my mind, the truly great innings was Sir Garfield Sobers' innings of 253 Not Out against Australia at Perth against a fast and furious Lillee after being bowled out for 51 in the first innings, where Sobers scored a duck. Sir Don Bradman rated it as the greatest innings he had seen played by a non Australian.Sobers told Lillee the previous day to watch out the next day.
Posted by Nampally on (November 18 2008, 20:59 PM GMT)A great inning is judged by how the runs were scored such as: Playing a winning innings under pressure, Setting the tone of the entire match by the way the innings is played, Match saving innings & Batting like poetry in motion. While author quotes examples from the modern times, some of the greatest innings of the past have been missed. Bradman's triple century in a single day of the test match (Centuries before lunch, between lunch & tea, between tea & close)is one of the greatest innings. Similarly Sobers getting 168 against Aussies in 1959 was a superb innings which included hitting a backfoot 6 the over the screen with the new ball and cover drives which scorched the fingers of the deep extra cover. It must be noted that these batsmen did have helmets & all kinds of protective gears as the modern batsmen have. That made their innings even greater & daring as during the bodyline bowling series. Should the great innings include the batting conditions & bodily protection provided?
Posted by mrgupta on (November 18 2008, 16:25 PM GMT)Yes thats so true, it all depends on individual's choice abt the best innings. I guess most times its also the their favourite team and their favourite batsman whose innings they count. I feel Laxman's 281 & Gavaskar's 221 were indeed the greatest innings played by Indians. Though i would also consider Rahul Dravid's 148 & Sachin's 193 against Eng in 2002-03 were also superb. I feel this was the match which turned the tide for India and they became a force overseas.... What about ODIs? I feel Sachin's 143 against Aus at Sharjah, Gibbs's 175 against Aus in that memorable match (Aus 434, SA 438), Steve Waugh's 120 at 99 WC, Sachin's 90 vs Aus 96' WC, Kapil's 175 at 83 WC, Inzy's heroics in 92 WC Semis.. so many of them, precious & countless....
Posted by Tuckanenan on (November 18 2008, 08:46 AM GMT)one that hasn't been mentioned despite fitting several criteria is KP's first 156 at the oval, against Lee, Warne and McGrath was an impressive effort. also should greatness of an innings not also be dependant on the role of the player? Dilleys 50 in Bothams test, or then again there are the little innings of great importance, Collingwoods 12 and giles's 50 at the Oval in '05 to support KP. And another that fits the criteria but isn't mentioned is Lara's maiden 277 and Randall taking on Lillee. in my view it is all but impossible to define a great innings because it is totally subjective, everyones view is different.
Posted by mcji5sa2 on (November 17 2008, 22:52 PM GMT)The description of a great innings has no definite answer but i feel most of the criteria set out in this article pretty much sum up how most people would classify it. However the selection of innings used in this article were dissapointing. I thought as I saw the author of the article that there might be many indian innings listed here and unfortunately there were. I have nothing against these innings but what happened to sarwan's knock against the Aussies in that test in west indies? de Silva's 64 from 40 odd balls against india in the 96 world cup semis? Ponting's century in the 05 ashes to save the test match?? It would be nice to see a more 'international' perspective from the cricinfo authors.
Posted by thesoccergod on (November 17 2008, 19:13 PM GMT)(Contd.) Cynicism, over-zealous reporters, and Haigh-flown prose aside, there really is something though to be said for superior batsmanship. Much like pornography, "you may not be able to define it, but you sure know it when you see it!" A confident stance, the dainty (and perhaps bludgeoning) quickness of the hands, and the sheer range of arresting shots are all accurate indicators of an above average talent. Thus, this side of the journalistic fraternity, I believe it is a cricket maven's privilege, nay duty even, to indulge in such spectacles with; the critical faculties dimmed, the lips sealed (except for the allowable heavy breathing when bearing witness to shots like a silky late cut or a delicate cover drive) and, if one is so lucky, a pretty face to transfer the gaze to when the "lord" gets off strike... Greatness, after all, is a conceit of human language. Cricket, on the other hand doesn't need a (spoken) language to entertain. Just as well.
Posted by Mopsy on (November 17 2008, 17:02 PM GMT)1. gavaskars 97 against pakistan at bangalore 2. gavaskars 90 vs WI at ahmedabad 3. gavaskars 124 against WI at delhi 4. gavaskars 101 at manchester 5 gavaskars 221 at oval 6 vishys 97 not out vs WI at chepauak 7 gavaskars 120/130 odd carrying his bat against pak, Imran at his best
Posted by StJohn on (November 17 2008, 16:32 PM GMT)Whilst certain adverse factors or criteria can be set out, what makes an innings great is more art than science and, as others have rightly commented, it is also highly subjective. As such, one of the key characteristics of a great innings must be that you saw at least part of it, probably live (whether on TV or at the ground). It is difficult to visualise or empathise with past masterpieces which, whilst no doubt great at the time, are now historical and which you can only appreciate through the writing of others, or through the slightly stale medium of a recording after the result is known and the inherent tension, uncertainty and magic of the moment has passed. For what it's worth, and in common with others, the greatest innings I have yet seen is Graham Gooch's 154 not out against West Indies back in 1991. But therein lies the key: to me it's great not just because of the opposition and the match situation, but simply because I was lucky enough to see at least part of it.
Posted by GV_Giri on (November 17 2008, 07:19 AM GMT)The best innings i have seen was 90 by Gavaskar against West Indies in 1983 in the third test in Ahmedabad. The attack was ferocious, and more so because it was the worst wicket in the history of Indian cricket. Even the Indian bowling looked dangerous against the mighty West Indian batting, and when India replied to the WI total Gavaskar tore into Marshall with the first two balls of the innings cover driven for boundaries. The assault continued, and while identical good length balls were either rearing up to 6 feet or scooting through at 6cm, Gavaskar did not play a single false stroke. His runs came in 120 balls, and included 15 fours. Everyone else in the match struggled to lay bat on ball. Only a fearless batsman, with plenty of strokes, and a perfect technique could have played such an innings. Unfortunately, India lost so heavily that this innings lies buried under a mountain of less monumental knocks.
Posted by Rajesh.NJ on (November 17 2008, 06:11 AM GMT)Sunil Gavaskar's last Test Innings of 97 against Pakistan on a mine field of a pitch in Bangalore deserves a mention in any list of great Test Innings........ This innings of 97 by Sunny is similar to Sachin Tendulkar's 136 against Pakistan at Chennai in 1999. Both were in losing causes but both those innings also showed how difficult it was to bat under such immense pressure when you saw the other batsmen fold up easily...... But VVS Laxman's 281 still remains the greatest Test Innings by a Indian..... What a knock that was !