Zaheer Khan Jelly Beans England; India 63 Runs Short of History

[mcgillianaire]

In just under an hour, India will do its best to secure only their 5th Test victory in England, out of 47 attempts and 15 series, since the two sides began playing in 1932. Interestingly, despite winning so few Tests over here, it includes two Indian series victories (in 1971 and 1986). A win today and we'll be well on our way to securing a third series victory. England haven't defeated India at the Oval since 1959, whereas we last defeated them there in 1971 to win that series. With history on our side and a "home-like" pitch at the Oval to boot, I think it'd be safe to put money on us now.

But it almost didn't happen. Us winning this Test comfortably I mean. The way Vaughan had grown in confidence after notching up his 17th Test century, gave me the jitters. We needed to get England out on the 4th Day, and minimize the fourth-innings target. Anything above 150 would be fair game, and anything above 200, dicey. As it happened, Vaughan gifted his wicket in the most unfortunate of circumstances. Everybody just sat stunned when the ball went off his thigh pad and into the stumps. It all happened so slowly, Vaughan even had time to look behind him, see he was about to get out, yet not have enough time to do anything about it. England lost their remaining wickets for less than 70 runs. (For dubaiwalla: the last 7 English wickets fell in less than 22 overs, and the same session).

Since this series has begun, England's batting collapses have bordered on nothing short of the spectacular. They read: 9/80 & 5/31 at Lord's, and 7/97 & 7/68 at Trent Bridge. If they want to draw this series, they're gonna have to sort out that middle-order. For India however, Zaheer Khan was nothing short of inspirational. After the jelly-bean incident of the previous day, the Pashtun-origin Gujarati-quickie turned the screws on the English by taking five wickets, all of them specialist batsmen. Besides the fortuitous Vaughan dismissal, all the others would've made even the legendary Wasim Akram proud. Alongwith RP Singh, who bowled Matt Prior with an absolute corker, and S Sreesanth, off-colour for most of yesterday; India has dominated this match through its superior swing bowling. And to think it was the Fab Four that everybody had written home about.

Well done boys. Bring the series home. No fireworks while batting today please. Just get the job done. Kthanxbye.

Comments

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

The point I was originally trying to make was that hoping for all 10 wickets to fall in the following session was unrealistic, and that affixing the word "ideally" to your statement only served to make it seem more so. By my reckoning, the chances of such a thing happening given the circumstances (decent opposition playing at home, pitch not deteriorating terribly, no major injury/sickness problems among the team's batsmen) were negligible (under 0.1%, say). I was not making the claim that the statistical likelihood was equal to that of poverty being eliminated overnight; such a claim clearly would be ridiculous. After that, I was primarily curious about whether anyone had kept records on wickets in sessions because it seemed like an interesting thing to keep tabs on.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Not all ideals are unrealistic and I don't think the chances were negligible in terms of getting close to all 10 wickets in a session. All 10 wickets, yes.

>I was not making the claim that the statistical likelihood was equal to that of poverty being eliminated overnight; such a claim clearly would be ridiculous.
Well, it certainly didn't come across that way.

>After that, I was primarily curious about whether anyone had kept records on wickets in sessions because it seemed like an interesting thing to keep tabs on.
Knock on the right door and you'll get it. Google is not a good place to dig up cricketing statistics when you've already got databases like StatsGuru (http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru) going around.

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

I don't think the chances were negligible in terms of getting close to all 10 wickets in a session.
I don't seem to recollect making any claims one way or another about a lesser number of wickets.

All 10 wickets, yes.
I got a different impression from this, but perhaps I misinterpreted it.

Well, it certainly didn't come across that way.
I shall strive to make my future statements on this blog more explicit in terms of what they claim.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

You have a habit of taking words at face value, which is fine. I don't.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

>records on wickets in sessions
I don't know if this is a record, but 13 wickets fell in the post-tea session (http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T4_03-07NOV2004.html) on the 3rd day of the 4th Test @ Mumbai between India & Australia in 2004. (I also don't know if this included the extra half-hour that is available to either side if there is a possibility of victory)