Commoner's Viewpoint- Uncommon view of a Commoner

The best innings so far

Cricket commentators, like politicians, suffer from a common but largely unknown disease called as commentator incorrectness (I am the one who has coined this term). Basically it is the inability to call a spade a spade. The best commentators do not suffer from this disease and speak on terms and subjects which a commoner like me understands and enjoys. The dissection on contemporary cricket commentary has been reserved in this blog cum lab for some other time.

Thanks to this disease, we often hear the phrase referring to a century or an innings “one of the best”, with variations like “one of the best you’ll ever see/ in a cricket world cup/under pressure”. It must be obvious that the title of the best can be awarded to only one and that one of the best can be shared by a few who have to be in a minority. Unfortunately this does not apply to the “great knocks” which we see so frequently.

This article is about the innings, that I believe, is the best I have seen so far this year.

I am referring to the unbeaten century (120 off 133) by Paul Collingwood in the first final of the Commonwealth Bank series against the Aussies.

The background: Australia had completed a whitewash in the Ashes and were all set for a similar performance in the ODI series. England had made an unexpected comeback in the series by winning matches against NZ and Australia. In the final at 170-1, Hayden and Ponting have laid a firm foundation and the Aussies are expecting a score of 300+ when against an inspired English attack they collapse like a pack of cards to end with a score of 252. Australia make the early breakthroughs and in comes Collingwood.

The innings: Collingwood and Bell do the rescue act by stitching together a vital partnership of 133. Bell plays his natural game by exhibiting some classical and delightful strokes. Collingwood compiles a composed and mature knock and along with Bell takes England closer to victory. To maintain the run rate, Collingwood does not hesitate to take the occasional calculated risk when he hits McGrath straight for a six. Bell departs for 65 to be replaced by Flintoff who plays a useful cameo of 35. Along with Flintoff, Collingwood steps on the gas and reaches his century at a decent strike rate. England are heading towards a win when Flintoff and Dalrymple are dismissed in quick succession. England need 25 off 18 when Collingwood takes the responsibility and plays two cheeky sweeps off Watson’s over which eventually costs 12. Nixon and Collingwood complete the formalities to seal a famous win with 4 wickets and 3 balls to spare.

For statistics and reports you may go to:

http://www.pcboard.com.pk/Archive/Scorecards/98/98957.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6341673.stm

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/story/279766.html

Why is it the best? It is summed up by the fact that it came against the best team in the world in hostile conditions and helped the team win the match.

The hallmark of his innings was that only (7 × 4 + 1 × 6) 34 runs came from boundaries in an innings of 120 with a strike rate of 90.22. Contrast this with the many flamboyant innings we have seen in the recent past where more than half of the runs have come with the help of boundaries. Years ago, Steve Waugh scripted a similar win in the match in which Gibbs “dropped the Cup”.

I harbour no grudge against the flashier and more attractive batsmen but the point to be noted is that flamboyance and pressure rarely go hand in hand. A good temperament is also a realization of the fact that one bats to win matches and that the crowd cannot be entertained sitting in the pavilion. Not just in cricket but also in life, the people adore the charismatic and flamboyant and ignore the workman. But it is the workmen like Collingwood who come to a team’s rescue when they need it the most. No wonder Sehwag still features in more commercials than Dravid who is “The Wall”. For more on this click on story (Cricinfo-The workman strikes back) I have dugg.