Black Caps v Pakistan
-
@Bovidae said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Hooroo Sadly, Nathan was restricted from bowling too many of his dangerous medium pacers.
@Snowy There could be others but none of usual suspects for all-rounders accomplished this feat.
Shakib Al Hasan
https://www.espncricinfo.com/bangladesh/content/player/56143.html
-
-
-
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
Wasim Akram is in the 200/10 club too
Jason Holder does, Stokes doesn't but might get a 10fer yet.
Snap.
-
-
-
-
@gt12 Allan Border - remarkable. 1989, 2 of the top three innings bowling were in the same game- 39 wickets at 39, and get a 10fer against a great batting lineup is just remarkable.
It's up there with Gillespie burglaring a 200 as a nightwatchman.
-
-
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
-
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
The other thing to consider is that a double requires one massive effort in a single innings, whereas 10fers (almost always) require sustained excellence over 2 innings.
A double century is a set standard though. It usually means you have batted a day and a half, seen of one or two new balls and taken fresh spells from all the oppositions best bowlers without making an error (or in the case of Pakistan having them drop you five times on the way).
10fers vary so much in quality between the mix of tail enders, game situation etc. 10fers are more a function of luck and opportunity - which is why you have so many seriously average spin bowlers on that list with 10fers like Krezja, Steve O'Keefe, Craig, Michael Bevan, Allan Border (vs 1980s West Indies of all teams) etc
Jamieson's 10fer stood out because he gutted their top order twice - most 10fers rely on clearing the tail at least once if not twice.
-
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
I agree with you. He just stopped a batsman cheating. Mankad sounds like an impressive player too.
"the MCC, the arbitrators of laws of cricket, have stressed that it is a legitimate dismissal and a "very necessary provision."
Even Bradman said this:
"For the life of me I cannot understand why the laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?"That was after the Aussie press had a go at Mankad and "drew the line" as they are wont (yes that is the correct term) to do. They have a bit of a habit of shifting that line about "the spirit of the game" and "laws" to suit themselves.
-
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@Snowy said in Black Caps v Pakistan:
@gt12 Holy shit, Mankad. One of the most famous names in cricket (for different reasons).
Unfairly maligned I think, nothing wrong with a mankad in my book. Up to the non striker to be timing his backing up properly.
I agree with you. He just stopped a batsman cheating. Mankad sounds like an impressive player too.
"the MCC, the arbitrators of laws of cricket, have stressed that it is a legitimate dismissal and a "very necessary provision."
Even Bradman said this:
"For the life of me I cannot understand why the laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered. If not, why is the provision there which enables the bowler to run him out?"That was after the Aussie press had a go at Mankad and "drew the line" as they are wont (yes that is the correct term) to do. They have a bit of a habit of shifting that line about "the spirit of the game" and "laws" to suit themselves.
Upvote for "wont"
-
