Let's not get tangled into how many balls faced. It's actually quite simple.
Tendulkar is playing really well and hitting boundaries.
He enters 90's.
And in the next 13 balls, scores 7 runs - 5 singles and 1 double.
What's the mindset here?
Is it the team's goal of 350 or personal landmark of century?
If it's team goal, then why slow down?
If he slowed down for the team, then why give the wicket away playing a reverse sweep?
You are blaming asad rauf for his dismissal? it took two action replays for Michael Holding in the box to pick up the glove brush!
Tendulkar is playing really well and hitting boundaries.
He enters 90's.
And in the next 13 balls, scores 7 runs - 5 singles and 1 double.
What's the mindset here?
Is it the team's goal of 350 or personal landmark of century?
If it's team goal, then why slow down?
If he slowed down for the team, then why give the wicket away playing a reverse sweep?
You are blaming asad rauf for his dismissal? it took two action replays for Michael Holding in the box to pick up the glove brush!
As usual you are lying.... He entered nineties ( with a boundry to 92). took 10 balls to move from 92 to 100 which is pretty much same as how he played whole inning.He didnot slow down. He played they way he was playing. At that time Run rate was 6.8. There was not need to rush it up they could have still made 350-60 but Asad played his role. He didnot need to speedup because some frustrated pakistani supporter with no life was watching the game and looking for reason to criticize him. Grow up. Your obsession with Sachin is becoming comical. You are becoming PD. Only difference is that his obsession is with All thing Indians.
40.5 Shahid Afridi to Tendulkar, FOUR, quicker delivery outside the off
stump, Tendulkar waits for it and at the last possible moment
steers it away to the vacant third man boundary, nicely opened the
face of the bat to get it away fine - well played at 92 40.6 Shahid Afridi to Tendulkar, one run, played down to fine leg
[FONT=COURIER NEW,COURIER,MONOSPACE] End of over 41 (12 runs) India 278/3 (RR: 6.78) Shahid Afridi 10-0-68-0 (1w) SR Tendulkar 93* (103b 10x4 1x6) Yuvraj Singh 33* (25b 3x4 1x6)
** 41.1 Abdul Razzaq to Tendulkar, no run, defended back to the bowler
41.2 Abdul Razzaq to Tendulkar, one run, on the pads, turned away nicely
to deep square leg**
41.3 Abdul Razzaq to Yuvraj Singh, FOUR, good length delivery on the
pads, Yuvraj drives and the ball races off the inner half of the
bat, midwicket had no chance of cutting it off
41.4 Abdul Razzaq to Yuvraj Singh, two runs, driven away well wide of
the fielder at long-off, runs hard and comes back for the second
41.5 Abdul Razzaq to Yuvraj Singh, OUT: gone! good length delivery on
the pads and Yuvraj flicks it away straight down the throat of
Arshad Khan at deep square leg, timed it well and that took the
ball straight to the fielder - end of an entertaining knock
** India 285/4, Partnership of 60**
** Yuvraj Singh c Arshad Khan b Abdul Razzaq 39 (28b 4x4 1x6)**
** SR Tendulkar 94* (105b 10x4 1x6) Abdul Razzaq 8.5-0-59-1**
Razzaq finally gets one to his name
41.6 Abdul Razzaq to Dravid, FOUR, off the mark in style! Razzaq strays
down the leg side and Dravid happily flicks it away to the fine
leg fence
End of over 42 (11 runs) India 289/4 (RR: 6.88) Abdul Razzaq 9-0-63-1 SR Tendulkar 94* (105b 10x4 1x6) R Dravid 4* (1b 1x4)
** 42.1 Arshad Khan to Tendulkar, one run, fulltoss, driven down to long-
on, easy single takes Tendulkar to 95**
42.2 Arshad Khan to Dravid, one run, turned away to deep square leg
** 42.3 Arshad Khan to Tendulkar, no run, driven away straight to Inzi at
covers
42.4 Arshad Khan to Tendulkar, one run, fired into the pads, Tendulkar
comes down the track and drives it back past the diving bowler**
42.5 Arshad Khan to Dravid, no run, turned away straight to Younis Khan
at midwicket
42.6 Arshad Khan to Dravid, one run, turned away well wide of Younis
Khan at midwicket
End of over 43 (4 runs) India 293/4 (RR: 6.81) Arshad Khan 3-0-24-0 R Dravid 6* (4b 1x4) SR Tendulkar 96* (108b 10x4 1x6)
43.1 Abdul Razzaq to Dravid, two runs, short of a good length delivery,
angled in from outside the off stump, Dravid quickly goes back and
flicks it away behind square on the leg side
43.2 Abdul Razzaq to Dravid, one run, turned away on the leg side for an
easy single
** 43.3 Abdul Razzaq to Tendulkar, no run, good length delivery on the
pads, turned away straight to the fielder at midwicket
43.4 Abdul Razzaq to Tendulkar, one run, pitched up on the pads, tucked
away straight to the fielder at deep midwicket**
43.5 Abdul Razzaq to Dravid, two runs, bit of width outside the off
stump, cut away well wide of the fielder at third man, excellent
placement
43.6 Abdul Razzaq to Dravid, one run, played away off the pads to fine
leg, 300 comes up for India!
End of over 44 (7 runs) India 300/4 (RR: 6.82) Abdul Razzaq 10-0-70-1 R Dravid 12* (8b 1x4) SR Tendulkar 97* (110b 10x4 1x6)
44.1 Arshad Khan to Dravid, no run, yorker length delivery on the
stumps, played away on the leg side
44.2 Arshad Khan to Dravid, one run, tossed up on the stumps, Dravid
makes room and drives it straight to Inzi at short cover who is
fielding deep, quick single added to the total
** 44.3 Arshad Khan to Tendulkar, two runs, played down to long-on, gets it
wide of the fielder in the deep and they come back for the second
44.4 Arshad Khan to Tendulkar, one run, there it is! 39th ODI hundred!
on the pads, turned away through square leg for an easy single,
huge cheers all around!**
f&b - can you subtract the Indian and Non-Indian part of your argument. I talk about cricketers.
The fact remains that he went down a gear after he gotcloser toa personal landmark, whereas the team landmark required him to play fast and also not give his wicket away, which he did.
No you dont... I just proved you that you were lying. As I said in my other post. You disappoint me. Find something bettet to do.
The fact remains that he went down a gear after he gotcloser toa personal landmark, whereas the team landmark required him to play fast and also not give his wicket away, which he did.
What personal landmark. He has 38 of those and he was just playing the way he was playing before 90s. He didnot change a bit. It was workign fine. Inning was revolvign aorund him and runrate was 6.8. There was still time to speedup and take team to 350-360. He doesnt have to speed up just to prove to the world that He is doing this for team.
Good thing is that Pakistan won this game. Full credit to our batsmen and our bowlers (especially the way they bowled at the fag end of Indian innings). Excellent excellent gamesmanship.
When Pakistan started their innings, they were looking at a score of 329 to win, which is a huge total under any circumstances. You need a few good innings and good partnerships. The depth and the versatility (CricInfo's new pet word) of the current Pakistan line-up is a huge factor these days.
I will also give full marks to whoever in the Pakistan camp, who was keeping an eye on the D/L method and the scoring rate. Fantastic work. This kind of far-sightedness and mastery of math was not common in Pakistan team a few years ago. Then again, our batsmen must be appreciated for making sure our run rate stays ahead.
Even though we won, there are a few major glitches in our performance.
Inzi's captaincy: When you have a pinch hitter blasting away uppishly and making merry of field restrictions, then why the heck will you take the second and the third power play right after over number 10? There is a reason, why the rules allow the fielding captain to decide when to take the power plays. This was just an indication of Inzi not using his brains to adapt to the game situation. I think Indian decision to send Pathan and then Dhoni were brilliant strategic decisions. Both of them did very well. Unfortunately, Inzi is either hesitant or incapable of adapting the game plan in the middle of the innings.
Use of Supersub: Pakistan won the toss and elected to field. So far so good. Then who the heck decided to have Arshad Khan as a super-sub? It was almost as if Pakistan had hoped to lose the toss and being asked to bat first. If you know that after winning the toss, you will field first, then simple use of brain cells will dictate that you should have an extra batsman as a super-sub. I chalk it up to either a temporary brain lapse by Woolmer or that Arshad's paawa is very strong.
Inzi's lack of understanding of the rules: Inzi's Obstruction the Field out was more hilarious cz Inzi is (probably still) clueless about rules of cricket. To be fair to him, after the moronic decision given against him in the series with England, he probably felt ok to stop the ball with his bat. That Rahul Dravid should have shown sportsmanship rather than sticking to the rules is a separate discussion. I bet if Rahul had recalled Inzi, it would create far more problems for Rahul in the politically charged cricket set up in India. Point of the matter is that umpires incompetence (as displayed so gloriously in English series) can't be helped by Inzi. However, being such a senior player, Inzi should have a better grasp of cricketing rules himself.
On the good side, Pakistan bowlers bowled magnificently in the last ten overs. At the end of 30 overs, India was 190-2. As Holding said, the rule of thumb is to double the score, but Pakistan held India back and robbed them of about 50 runs by some fantastic bowling (Asif and Rana). That Pakistan (especially Asif) lately seemed to have tamed Sehwag is a huge plus.
For India, there are many pluses from this game. Tendulkar is back in his groove. Yuvraj is fluent. Dravid's captaincy in the field, keeping a slip and having fielders in catching positions pretty much throughout, was probably due to having the cushion of a huge score, but was interesting and courageous nevertheless.
Some people have criticized Pakistan of not going for a "fair and square" win and instead opting for the sneaky D/L win. I don't agree with that at all. I think rules of cricket are there for every one, and if a rule favors you, you take it. Dravid and the Indian team were perfectly ok to get Inzi out on obstruction rule. Pakistan did fine by maintaining a higher run rate and opted to take the light offered to them as soon as the umpires offered it to them. At the end of the day, both teams were trying to win the game by using the rules of the game. Good stuff.
All in all, it was a great game. Many teams have chased 300+ in ODI's lately, and scored 300+ themselves. But very few actually managed to win by chasing 300+. Pakistan is showing how it can chase 300+ targets in ODI's, and that is an awesome feeling. There were already whispers of WC '07 and being favorites and all that, but I think that is very pre-mature. The team is good, but unless we can demonstrate that we can play well in foreign soils, especially how quickly we adapt to West Indian conditions, there is no sense in drumming up hype.
Congratulations to all Pakistan supporters for a fantastic win. Commiserations to Indian supporters for a well-played and well-fought out game. Hope the next four games are similar in close competitions, but devoid of some of the stupid mistakes being made in this game.
Faisal bhai to my understanding you have to submit the name of the team + super-sub before the toss. so its more like guessing who should be your super-sub.
Arshad Khan, well we have all sorts of word for him, dont we, The reason Inzi/woolmer’s decision can be upheld is that we dont have a quality off-spinner yet, or someone is “still in process…” but they (think tank) is not ready to throw them in the crunch series, it surprise me he is not a consistent member of the team coz he cracked his way in the team in **93 **yeah he is that old, why he keeps coming back? ofcourse of his performance I dont see any other reason “in the current team” and as for him being a super-sub well he is a good off-spinner with a decent L&L, I think shoaib malik ability to bowl some off-spin takes him out of the equation otherwise we might see him in the 11 yea! we know ODIs is batsman game but he has maintained an ECo of 4 something so kudos to him, I have no problem seeing him as super-sub.
P.S: why would you need more than 5 batsman + 2 all-rounders to chase or put a target when your forte is consistency.
Yes, you have to give the names of your entire team (plus the super sub) before the toss. Stupid rule, and all that, but thats the way it is. So lets live with it.
If Pakistan was planning to bat first, then they should keep an extra batsman in the line-up and after the innings is over, replace that batsman with the bowler. That is the proper use of super-sub. And if you lose the toss and put to field first, then you don’t really use your super-sub. If your team is well-balanced in the first place, you don’t really need a super-sub anyway, and its just an added nakhra, in my opinion.
Arshad Khan is just a bowler. He can’t bat. So, if Pakistan had intended to field first, then they should have kept a batsman as a super-sub. If they wanted to keep Arshad Khan for his bowling, then put him in the original team, to be replaced by the batsman in 2nd innings. Its all very simple.
The way it played out in Peshawar, seemed like Pakistan was not really expecting to win the toss. And deciding the field first with a bowler as sub, its clear someone was not connecting the dots.
I for one agree … damn this is a team game and where the heck ist the rest when it’s up to a challange … he did quite well to play 2nd fiddle when dhoni and Pathan and Yuvi were on fire … now if u still can’t defend 328 then better as ur bowlers or ur fielding/bowling strategy instead of acusing to be the culprit for the defeat … poor guy has a timing no one would like to have namely when he scores a 100 Pak goes on to win … i hope those pointing a finger at him look at whole team india and ask themselve how the heck they manage to take so much time to bowl their overs … coz this for me is the main reason for India’s defeat … a win would’ve meant Sachin is MOM and a great hero who cam back with a bang
Sad to see that ppl fail to realise that the sitution is no different regarding Tendi but for the bowlers India has
^ I agree luckluster Indian bowling is the main culprit here, just as it was in the test match.
However, I disagree that slow over rate cost India the game. I honestly believe that when you get to a really close finish line (18 runs off 18 balls kinda situation), batting team has an advantage. Pakistan would have won, anyway. They were just cheekily smart about their run rate from the get-go, ready for D/L at any time.
I was just about to say that too. At that time, I thought Inzamam was remembering all the adjectives that he has written thus far in his The News columns, and that was probably the only one that came to his mind then.
SreeSanth accidently bowled that one delivery clocked at 86.4, hence, I consider him to be a great fast bowler in the upcoming decade for India.
Excellent overall post, and most importantly, discussing in depth the above.
Rahul Dravid has been fined 20% of his match fee for a slow over-rate during the first ODI against Pakistan at Peshawar. The rest of the team have been fined 10%.
India were behind by two overs. The rule stipulates that 5% of a player’s match fee will be docked for every extra over and the captain is fined double the amount. The final drinks break was unusually long and that could have cost India the fine. Pakistan won the first ODI by seven runs according to the Duckworth-Lewis system after bad light stopped play.
Yes he did. I always said that in that inning he played 2nd fiddle and did very good. There is nothign wrong with it. One need to do what works best for team.
I was shocked by some bumbos here who were blaming sachin for defeat. Thanks for Zero1 to speel out facts without being biased.
yea! we know ODIs is batsman game but he has maintained an ECo of 4 something so kudos to him, I have no problem seeing him as super-sub.
