Against South Africa today, Tendulkar scored the first ODI double century.
Geez! I saw he was 124 n.o after 33 overs and though SA might be in a bit of trouble! Mind you, I'm not sure 200 on the small, lightning fast Indian outfields would be 200 anywhere else. In any case, it's a mean feat, so well done to the Little Master!
In English, please? I'm too lazy to start googling terms, but I'm interested enough to want to know more aobut this accomplishment.
If Cricket is a religion then Sachin is God and i am his ardent devotee :)
That basically means that someone named Tendulkar rode 200 miles non stop in a bicycle race. Not an easy task. Most humans only have enough energy stored in their muscles and liver to survive 50 to 75 miles. Beyond that, you have to rely on supplemental energy, maybe by eating an energy bar every 15 minutes.
The previous high score for a team batting at Gwalior was 289 (by Pak, vs SL in 1997).
And it's certainly not like he did it against an easy team either - SA is ranked #3 in the ODI rankings.
Wait, were you being serious? We do need that sarcasm/irony smiley.
No, you missed the Odie part. It goes like this.
The game is cricket. Here's a quickie intro:
No one in the game of cricket (specifically in the One-Day format), had, until yesterday, accomplished the feat of scoring 200 runs in a single match. What makes this difficult is that, in addition to having to last long enough without getting "out", you have a limited number of balls to face. Sachin Tendulkar - who broke the record yesterday - is considered by many cricket experts to be the best batter (or batsman) the game has today, and easily among the best of all time.
I thought that is already too English. Did you mean American?
That's not a particularly good statistic to test my hypothesis, especially given the low number of games played at Gwalior. Perhaps a better way to look at this is by comparing the batting averages on a ground-by-ground basis for grounds where there have been > 10 ODIs:
or given Tendulkar brought up his 200 in the last over, perhaps we should look at the above, but sorted by average run-rate:
Given the above, I will stand by my statement! (which included "In any case, it's a mean feat, so well done to the Little Master!")
Yes, but this would have to be a polytheist religion which included the great Sir Donald Bradman!
Agreed! Those are better ways to look at the stats.
Few would disagree with that. And speaking of Bradman ... http://www.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/96323.html
From the URL above, it looks like Indian grounds are in general favor of batsmen. Is it due to smaller ground, fast rolling ground or slow pitch?
In re cycling 'double century', 200 km or 120 miles is the shortest of the brevets to qualify for Paris-Brest-Paris or Boston-Montreal-Boston, 1200 km in 90 hours. Brevet, Audax or Randonee.
In English, please?
That is more properly called 'double metric century'.
Slow pitches aren't generally conducive to scoring quickly. The grounds in India are small and have fast outfields, which I think is the dominant factor in the faster scoring rates and larger batting averages/inning totals..
Man, its all anyone here can talk about these days. The worst part is that I dont really follow cricket and never really have.
Separate names with a comma.