April 13, 2004


Brian Lara: 400 not out.

Posted by Tim Blair at April 13, 2004 06:38 AM

So, errrm, is this a really good thing or a really bad thing ?

- Yet Another Yank Bemused by all this Cricket Stuff

Posted by: Carl in N.H. at April 13, 2004 at 07:52 AM

Yeh, I noticed that. A friend of mine's comment was to hell with Lara. He, a cricketer, would prefer a consistent 100 on a regular basis rather than 300 now and 400 four years later. I tend to agree with him. As much as I'm a fan of Windies, they're absolutely covered in shame by letting England beat them. Imagine that!!! England beat Windies in a Test Match!! What is the world coming to? This Windies team is great at partying and lousy at cricketing. I'd even go so far as to say strip Lara of the captaincy cuz he can't lead.

Posted by: Helen at April 13, 2004 at 08:18 AM

Carl, this is record breaking. Lara is a master batsman who practised his stroke play and eye contact by using a ruler and a marble. 400 runs in one stand is the equivalent of the same player hitting four grandslams in the same inning of a baseball game and more. It's sorta like if Jeter or Rodriguez scored all the runs in one night's game, had the whole cirecle -- single, etc. -- several times over. Only the best cricketers can do this, have done this, and that best is not restricted by race or geographical boundaries.

What makes it even more difficult to accomplish is that the batsman faces bowlers with different type techniques. Imagine dealing with Rocket, Kevin Brown, Kurt Schilling, Mariano Rivera, the little feller in Boston, Pedro Martinez, and some of the lesser lights thrown in.

Posted by: Helen at April 13, 2004 at 08:25 AM

Time to introduce the cricket term "millennium"?

Posted by: Jan Haugland at April 13, 2004 at 08:56 AM

And the crazy thing is, although it's against England, it's actually an impressive thing to do against this England. Certainly a lot more impressive then it was in 1994.

Posted by: Scott Wickstein at April 13, 2004 at 09:13 AM

Pity he couldn't get runs when the test series was alive. He's the new Dean Jones.

Posted by: Mike Hunt at April 13, 2004 at 11:16 AM

Crickets, yesss, we likes them, Precious. Gollum! So nice and tasty and crunchable.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 13, 2004 at 11:59 AM

Yes, pity he didn't get the runs when it really mattered. The entire Windies team ought to be scrapped. From first to eighth? Ridiculous. Even Viv Richards is saying enough.

Posted by: Helen at April 13, 2004 at 12:17 PM

As an Englishman, I find this hilarious. So the combination of a dead rubber & the flattest pitch in the Caribbean combine to provide the biggest ego in cricket with 400*. Wow. Wowie-wow-wow-wow. Now all we need to cement the futility of this particular achievement is three solid days of rain once Geraint has upset Chris Read's apologists by notching up his 100 on Test debut (to go with 4 byes in a total of 751).

Posted by: vulturedave at April 13, 2004 at 12:32 PM

I used to be a master batsman, but my mom told me it caused blindness.

Posted by: iowahawk at April 13, 2004 at 12:35 PM


I believe you are confusing the wonderful game of cricket with the great socialist tradition of mass debating.

Posted by: DaveACT at April 13, 2004 at 12:59 PM


The flat pitch hasn't helpe your blokes out too much. As for Geraint Jones, if your relying on a Papua New Guinean who was brought up in Australia to solve your problems, that pretty much sums up English cricket.

Posted by: Pezza at April 13, 2004 at 01:53 PM

400 is a good knock n' all, but look at the fearsome bowling attack it is against:

Hoggard Harmison Flintoff Jones
Batty Vaughan

puh-lease. What a bunch of no talent hacks, and the same goes for Haydens innings as well. In the list of great innings, these would rank low on the list.

Posted by: attila at April 13, 2004 at 02:51 PM

400 is a good knock even against lousy bowling. The bowling wasn't much different when England took three matches from Windies. Same hacks. This time, they got their arses waxed, like it should have been in the other three matches. The guy was on form. That's how it goes. Cricket, like baseball, is a game of inches.

Posted by: Helen at April 13, 2004 at 03:21 PM

well maybe a "half millenium"
that way if he had gone on they could have shown his stats

half centuries - 43
centuries - 24
half milleniums - 1

Posted by: scottie at April 13, 2004 at 04:32 PM

I read the first article Tim linked to, and I am not sure it was even written in English..

I suppose it would be the same if someone completely unfamilar with Baseball read an article about a player who hit several grand slams.

Anyone have a link to a cricket primer for us Ameerikans?


Posted by: Washington Conservative at April 14, 2004 at 02:27 AM

Washington Conservative, every summer in city parks around the U.S. you'll find cricket played. Look for a bunch of black guys wearing white, sometimes with a sleeveless white sweater over the white shirt. Google cricket thing and you'll get some good intro material to help you understand delightful terms like "silly mid-off" and "gully" and "square leg" and "googly."

Posted by: Helen at April 14, 2004 at 02:53 AM

Yeah, nice one Brian. But...we won the series. WE WON THE SERIES!!! Nyaah nyaah ni nyaah nyaah! [Raspberry]

And now we're coming for you Aussies.

Posted by: David Gillies at April 14, 2004 at 03:48 AM