Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Dean Jones' 210 should have been top 30 at least.

As for Sachin. I didn't see it but his ton at Perth when he was still young, though according to greyblazer it was one of his best. I watched a fair bit of his double at Sydney and thought it was a very cautious, even boring innings.

Boycott's 191* at Headingley in 77 is pretty famous. But I'd rather have Thorpe's 113* and then 32* at Colombo in 01- maybe ahead of Botham at OT in 81. I picked that out as England's innings of this century on a thread here some time ago.

Stewart's twin hundreds in Barbados. Must be up there from an England perspective?

Bob Willis at Headingley 81 wasn't there.

Was Gooch's 333 and 123 there?

Botham at OT
Botham at Headingley
Botham in Indian centenary
Gooch at Headingley
KP at Mumbai
Gower at the WACA
Atherton at The Wanderers

Are the ones picked. I'd leave out Gower and Botham at OT for Freddie and Thorpey. The others are must picks. You could leave out KP I guess.

Gooch scoring a world record 456 runs in a test has to be there? I know the Indian attack was poor but still...

Was it better than ones they picked though. Seven selections for England out the 50 seems reasonable. Gooch's 135 at Headingley against Pakistan was better than his 333 in my opinion.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Was it better than ones they picked though. Seven selections for England out the 50 seems reasonable. Gooch's 135 at Headingley against Pakistan was better than his 333 in my opinion.

It was the fact he scored 123 in the 2nd innings as well.

Lara's 400 was high in the list because it was 400. In truth it was a pretty selfish innings.

I didn't think it was a selfish innings. It was WI intention not to be whitewashed, and it worked to that end, and they got England to follow on. But it was very flat. England went past WI's score following on, so WI needed those runs in terms of winning the game. Not sure it was one of the best fifty though.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I didn't think it was a selfish innings. It was WI intention not to be whitewashed, and it worked to that end, and they got England to follow on. But it was very flat. Not sure it was one of the best fifty though.

I saw it as him wanting his record back. Fair play, he done it.

Gingerfinch wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I didn't think it was a selfish innings. It was WI intention not to be whitewashed, and it worked to that end, and they got England to follow on. But it was very flat. Not sure it was one of the best fifty though.

I saw it as him wanting his record back. Fair play, he done it.

saw it the same way, didn't he say before the game he wanted the record back.
No idea why he loved that record so much.

it was so odd because even when he reached 100, everyone was talking about if he can break the record.

if they included it should have been lower down, not in the top 20 knocks.
375 was so much special than the 400.

He clearly did want the record back. But I don't see that it harmed WI from getting whatever they could out of the game. If Lara hadn't got those runs, WI would have had to get more in the second innings. Why not get them first up? Arguably he might have batted on.

It shouldn't have happened though, he was out to Harmison on about 30, but it wasn't given. It didn't win the match, so maybe it shouldn't have been in.

didn't feel like a match, felt like it was all about Lara, even the coverage was all about lara.
This was a game where england were winning 4-0 and all sky could talk about was lara and the record.

375 was a far better innings.

400 was probably included because it was against England and had far better tv coverage.

I doubt he would have gone for 400 if Hayden hadn't have scored 380 against Zimbabwe. Anyway, that innings was way to high on the list, for me, even though he is my favourite ever batsman.