I am not exactly aware of Murali Kesavan, but in an article attributed to this presumably knowledgeable man, published at Cricinfo, he attempts to sound wise but ends up revealing his ignorance. That may be harsh; so lets just say he makes some questionable statements in a professorial tone; now a trademark of Harsha Bhogle.
Firstly he calls all of us who are in fact anticipating Sachin Tendulkar's 100th 100; as cricket illiterate; and then immediately reveals his own questionable literacy levels on the game, by flatly suggesting that making a Test match 100 is more difficult than making a ODI hundred because, in Tests the bowling side's best bowlers have no restriction on the overs that they can bowl.
That automatically makes Agarkar's 100 at Lord's more difficult; and thus presumably of higher quality; than Arvinda De Silva's 100 at the World Cup finals in Lahore in 1996.
The gist of the article is that 100 is just a number;that we have arrived at by adding apples and oranges; and those who are fretting over this somehow have not made this discovery.
Sir Don Bradman can now truly rest in peace. What is the point of adding up a set of scores across all innings over a span of 52 tests, dividing that number by the number of innings where the batsman was dismissed and then fret that the math does not add up to 100?
Those who turned up to watch the great Sir Don Bradman play his last Test innings in 1948, hoping that he would make at least 4 runs were all half-witted, stat obsessed fools. That is what Murali Kesavan truly implies.
7 comments:
It was all tongue-in-cheek Gol...Take it easy..
"....so lets just say he makes some questionable statements in a professorial tone; now a trademark of Harsha Bhogle."
Quite ironic - considering I always thought it was also the trademark of this blog. At least based on the latest spate of questionable comments questioning the integrity of the senior Indian batsmen. :)
:-) I was waiting for that one
however, I have never questioned the integrity of the seniors. They are all all-time-greats. Its just that thier time has come..
Kapil laboured to break Hadlee's record and he was criticized. His integrity was never questioned.
I doubt any of the folks who turned up to watch Bradman's last inning knew that it was going to be his last inning or that Bradman's average would drop below a 100 if he got out for 3 runs or less. (He got out for 0 in the first inning of the Test and it ended up being the only inning that Australia batted). His average before that inning was 101 and they did not have "real time" updates like people do on CricInfo today to know his average. For all they knew, Australia might have to bat one more time. They were there just to watch cricket. It is only later that folks realized his average was going to stop short of 100.
You are probably right. The point is that sachins 100th id as significant as bradmans average of 100. It is a piece of statictic that shows how much better he was than his peers of the the.
Actually, is Kesavan or anyone in the "it is just a number" bandwagon suggesting a First Class hundred is as difficult as a Test match hundred? Infact, in some cases, it might be but the point is that Jack Hobbs scored 197 first class hundreds came even in a Hollywood movie, you know. I dont remember anybody crying shame over adding up a meaningless set of numbers then. Loads of articles on Cricinfo, Guardian etc when Ramprakash closed in on 100 FC 100s. Mukul Kesavan didnt fret then, did he? The point is the problem is not the arbitrary 100 international hundreds statistics. The problem is Sachin Tendulkar. It is fashionable to criticise the ubiqituous "Sachin fanatic on internet". You make a very valid point - if a test match hundered and ODI 100 are not equal, soa re not a test match hundred and a FC 100. Infact, no 2 test match hundreds might have teh same value as conditions, bowlers, pitches etc differ. What is the point in having Cricekt statistics itself, then? But then, these questions will arise only when they indict Sachin Tendulkar or his fans in some way. Anyway, I am not looking forward to this 100th hundred. But I find the sanctimony of the anti-100th hundred crowd equally unbearable as the anticipating fanatic's expectation of it.
Post a Comment