The greatest ever Test innings under pressure of the modern era

[India2011]

I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned Dravid's brillinat 233 at the Adelaide oval in that famous win over Australia. That is the greatest innings under pressure - there was so much being said about the Indian team and Dravid especially, and for him to go out there and lead India to victory against Australia in Australia, setting the tone for the series, (which, if not for a gritty fightback from Australia in the fourth test, India would have won comprehensively) when there was so much at stake, including the pride of a nation, it doesn't get much better.

Something a lot of people don't understand is that Indian players are under far more pressure, since there are about a billion people obsessing over your every move, and in a country where being an international cricketer is like being a national hero, you simply can't fail. And that's what Sachin has had to play with for 19 years, what Dravid and Ganguly have had to live with for 12. And for someone to succeed again and again under that much pressure like those three (maybe a little less so Ganguly) is an amazing feet, one that many people don't apprecieate.

As someone mentioned above, Sachin's 136 against Pakistan, even though it was a losing cause, it was a time when there was so much passion surrounding India-Pakistan games, it was far bigger than the Ashes (which then didn't hold the excitement it does now), and for him to play that innings under so much pressure was fantastic.

 

[metallics2006]

Because they are a long way behind the rest. If India's bowling attack is bad, then Zimbabwe's is non existent. They and Bangladesh are a long way behind the pack.

Inzamam's was a good innings, but it doesn't rate up there because it was against Bangladesh. That's the truth. Are you seriously saying that a century against England or Australia is in the same class as getting one against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh?

Take a look at the scorecard mate. It was the time when the Flower brothers were playing for Zimbabwe and the pace attack had Heath Streak and Henry Olanga in it not to mention the captaincy and field settings of Andy Flower. It was almost as good as any other side in world cricket at that time.

 

[Cricketman]

Zimbabwe pre-2000's were a good side IMO.

 

[Pakistani Army]

Mark Butcher's 173 not out against the Australians at Headingley in the 2001 Ashes. That win prevented the Australians from getting a Whitewash.

 

[Insomniac]

lol

So you think that as soon as the batsman walks to the crease, when the score is at 39/6 or trailing by over 300 runs, his going to be sweating every possible second of his innings knowing fully well that if he fails then that's the end of his career?

You two are seriously kidding yourselves if you think the sort've thing you call pressure, even compares to a situation where the game is actually there to be won or saved.

To top it off, the two innings' that you highlighted weren't performed by the star players of the side either. Nothing was really expected from them. They can be labelled as innings' of shear genius, or great knocks to get the team out of trouble but not great under pressure innings' of the highest quality.

Exactly. You've just shot yourself in the foot. Look, if I was Kamran Akmal or VVS Laxman, I would probably swing at the balls madly and try to hit the team out of trouble.

These 2 took responsibility and accountability, and soaked in the pressure of being 39-6 in an IMPORTANT test match.

zMario added 3 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

Because they are a long way behind the rest. If India's bowling attack is bad, then Zimbabwe's is non existent. They and Bangladesh are a long way behind the pack.

Inzamam's was a good innings, but it doesn't rate up there because it was against Bangladesh. That's the truth. Are you seriously saying that a century against England or Australia is in the same class as getting one against Zimbabwe or Bangladesh?

Dean, I'm going to use the same excuses the Indians have been using against me.

On their day, England's bowling attack can be crap, and Zimbabwe's can be world-class.

A test 100 is a test 100, you have to work hard for both undeniably, right?

There are 100s that are harder to get, such as Kamran's vs India (39-6) and VVS Laxman's vs Australia (trailing by 300), while the easier ones such as Sachin's 248* v Bangladesh.

So yes, you are right there, however the way the Indian fans have been talking about their bowling attack, you would be inclined to put it with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

 

[King Pietersen]

No Indian would put the Zimbabwean or Bangladeshi attacks anywhere near theirs. It may be a test hundred, but it was against an inferior Test side, so therefore does not go anywhere near the top in terms of best innings, under pressure or not. That's why I don't rate Matthew Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe as high as I rate Brian Lara's 375 against England.

Another case for Pietersen's innings is what that innings has helped him achieve. If he had got out playing a stupid shot early in his innings, he could have been left out of the test side there and then, he had started the series well but gone off the boil after that, so his Test career was under threat somewhat going into that Test at the Oval. If it wasn't for Pietersen's 158 and help from Ashley Giles England would have lost that Test Match, resulting in Australia retaining the Ashes. The 158 also secured Pietersen's side in the team, and look where it has taken him. Off the back of that 1 score he's been allowed to go on and gain in confidence and work his way up to England captaincy. So Pietersen's 158 was not only important because of the match situation, but also because of what he's achieved since that time and the career that's been allowed to develop since then. Pietersen's certainly achieved far more since Kamran Akmal after his career saving innings.

 

[angryangy]

Take a look at the scorecard mate. It was the time when the Flower brothers were playing for Zimbabwe and the pace attack had Heath Streak and Henry Olanga in it not to mention the captaincy and field settings of Andy Flower. It was almost as good as any other side in world cricket at that time.

Maybe you should read the scorecard. Heath Streak would have been something of a saving grace if he actually bowled in that match and I'm sure Andy Flower's captaincy would have had an effect if he was captain. It's first class quality cricket, nothing as grave as Zimbabwe today, but the bowlers were certainly there to be scored off.

 

[Insomniac]

No Indian would put the Zimbabwean or Bangladeshi attacks anywhere near theirs. It may be a test hundred, but it was against an inferior Test side, so therefore does not go anywhere near the top in terms of best innings, under pressure or not. That's why I don't rate Matthew Hayden's 380 against Zimbabwe as high as I rate Brian Lara's 375 against England.

Another case for Pietersen's innings is what that innings has helped him achieve. If he had got out playing a stupid shot early in his innings, he could have been left out of the test side there and then, he had started the series well but gone off the boil after that, so his Test career was under threat somewhat going into that Test at the Oval. If it wasn't for Pietersen's 158 and help from Ashley Giles England would have lost that Test Match, resulting in Australia retaining the Ashes. The 158 also secured Pietersen's side in the team, and look where it has taken him. Off the back of that 1 score he's been allowed to go on and gain in confidence and work his way up to England captaincy. So Pietersen's 158 was not only important because of the match situation, but also because of what he's achieved since that time and the career that's been allowed to develop since then. Pietersen's certainly achieved far more since Kamran Akmal after his career saving innings.

Actually KP, you're wrong there. England had injury problems with their batsmen on the tour to Pakistan in 2005. Ian Bell had what, 20 runs in 5 tests against Australia in that Ashes, while Pietersen had at least 2 50s. Vaughan didn't play in Multan at the first test, and Ian Bell took his place who averaged less than 10 IIRC in The Ashes 2005.

So your theory there is completely wrong, because England gave Vaughan's spot to a guy who couldn't even buy a run in the Ashes.

And also King Pietersen, since when is this debate about what the batsmen have achieved after a certain knock? How was KP suppoused to predict any of this stuff happening to him? Besides, by your theory, I can say look at what Inzamam has achieved since he debuted, look at what Lara has achieved since he debuted, look at what Ponting has achieved since becoming captain.

Really anyone can play that game.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Exactly. You've just shot yourself in the foot. Look, if I was Kamran Akmal or VVS Laxman, I would probably swing at the balls madly and try to hit the team out of trouble.

These 2 took responsibility and accountability, and soaked in the pressure of being 39-6 in an IMPORTANT test match.

With VVS's innings' in that sort of situation, you would set out to bat exactly like you would in the first-innings of a Test Match.

 

[smssia0112]

Take a look at the scorecard mate. It was the time when the Flower brothers were playing for Zimbabwe and the pace attack had Heath Streak and Henry Olanga in it not to mention the captaincy and field settings of Andy Flower. It was almost as good as any other side in world cricket at that time.

So they're good for a Zimbabwean side, that still doesn't mean they were a good team. It still does not equate with an Aussie, English, Pakistani or Indian side. It's even not in the same league as New Zealand.

aus5892 added 0 Minutes and 31 Seconds later...

Maybe you should read the scorecard. Heath Streak would have been something of a saving grace if he actually bowled in that match and I'm sure Andy Flower's captaincy would have had an effect if he was captain. It's first class quality cricket, nothing as grave as Zimbabwe today, but the bowlers were certainly there to be scored off.

And that.

aus5892 added 1 Minutes and 31 Seconds later...

I'm really surprised nobody has mentioned Dravid's brillinat 233 at the Adelaide oval in that famous win over Australia. That is the greatest innings under pressure - there was so much being said about the Indian team and Dravid especially, and for him to go out there and lead India to victory against Australia in Australia, setting the tone for the series, (which, if not for a gritty fightback from Australia in the fourth test, India would have won comprehensively) when there was so much at stake, including the pride of a nation, it doesn't get much better.

Something a lot of people don't understand is that Indian players are under far more pressure, since there are about a billion people obsessing over your every move, and in a country where being an international cricketer is like being a national hero, you simply can't fail. And that's what Sachin has had to play with for 19 years, what Dravid and Ganguly have had to live with for 12. And for someone to succeed again and again under that much pressure like those three (maybe a little less so Ganguly) is an amazing feet, one that many people don't apprecieate.

As someone mentioned above, Sachin's 136 against Pakistan, even though it was a losing cause, it was a time when there was so much passion surrounding India-Pakistan games, it was far bigger than the Ashes (which then didn't hold the excitement it does now), and for him to play that innings under so much pressure was fantastic.

I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous reason. Just because Indian fans are more fanatic than Australian fans doesn't mean you're under more pressure to perform. If a cricketer, or should I say an elite sportsman or athlete, can't focus on the match situation and is too concerned with the crowd's reaction, then they do not deserve to be there.

 

[aussie_ben91]

If anything, Australian players are under more pressure then any other country, because the expection and hatred towards us is allot higher then any other cricket country in the entire world.

 

[metallics2006]

Dont blame us for the hatred. Blame Ponting.

 

[Insomniac]

If anything, Australian players are under more pressure then any other country, because the expection and hatred towards us is allot higher then any other cricket country in the entire world.

Why are you jumping from excuse to excuse with completely obscure and unintelligent posts?

If you bat in the second innings the same way as the first, there is something clearly wrong with that person. First of all, the situation of the game would have evolved and changed dramatically. Secondly, if you have a lead of say 300, and elect to not take the follow on, and are batting defensively (if you're an opener), then possibly, just possibly, you're playing a rather selfish innings for runs rather than extending the lead, unless the captain has told you to bat defensively

 

[aussie_ben91]

Why are you jumping from excuse to excuse with completely obscure and unintelligent posts?

If you bat in the second innings the same way as the first, there is something clearly wrong with that person. First of all, the situation of the game would have evolved and changed dramatically. Secondly, if you have a lead of say 300, and elect to not take the follow on, and are batting defensively (if you're an opener), then possibly, just possibly, you're playing a rather selfish innings for runs rather than extending the lead, unless the captain has told you to bat defensively

Oh my god. You completely take what I say and twist it into something different. :

I'm talking about the situation that VVS Laxman was in, not under some other circumstance, like you are trying to make out. In Laxman's situation, you naturally bat normally (you bat as you normally would in the first innings of a Test Match) and see what comes out of it. When you're trailing by 300 runs & following on, then it's almost impossible to try and plan something, like you're trying to say. You just can't plan out innings' the one that Laxman played that day. You can just block for 3 days and not make any runs because the chances are you'll get bowled out anyway, you've got to make runs. You play normally.

You can obviously not comprehend what I am trying to say and your insecurity on this topic is showing because you are being proven wrong and you are just taking shreads of the truth and writting out irrelevant information to the arguement.

 

[smssia0112]

Keep it civil please both of you.

Pressure comes in many shapes and forms, not just in one way or another. The only way to measure the difference between playing for India and Australia is to have done so.