Can't say I'm the greatest authority on being level headed and responsible on here, and I love a shit take just as much as anyone else - BUT there did seem to be a whole lot of them over the last few days. Some in regards to the actual match, and then of course some other things that happened.
So here's a (relatively) unbiased look at some I saw several times over:
Siraj is soft/too emotional
Crying during your national anthem is not a weird thing to do. Anyone who has watched the Olympics would know this.
India has ~20% of the world's population at this point. To be in the top 11 players in the nation's most popular sport is an unbelievable achievement. If you don't feel anything inside when the anthem plays and the realisation that you're about to play for your country sinks in... Who are you?
No one is born to play for a nation. You have to earn it. There is context behind these things.
What was said wasn't even that bad
Note the second word in the term 'casual racism'
They say worse things to minorities at NBA/NFL/NRL/AFL/Soccer etc
...That's bad.
That doesn't actually improve the situation. Not even the tiniest little bit.
I have said on here before that I find it very strange how fans of test cricket can be racist (perhaps a naive sentence) - given that test cricket is probably the only sport that has an elite team in every continent, who all routinely play each other. The Windies team covers both North and South America if anyone didn't know. And yes, Antarctica is basically Australia. Fight me.
In my mind it's very strange to follow a sport like this and still have some 1800s level opinions.
"The crowd is abusing me" is ripe for exploitation and time-wasting
The simple fact is that there are way better ways to waste time. I seem to remember Stuart Broad used to have an odd condition where he suddenly needed to remove both his shoes at very convenient moments. However, he never got the police involved and never had to get his nations board to make public statements.
If someone was found to do this purely for the sake of wasting time, their punishment wouldn't be small.

• Hopefully that covers some things. So to the actual game:

If Pujara batted faster, India could have won
Maybe? Very hard to tell.
The thing is, Pujara was never playing for the win. Pant was.
Pant and Pujara don't have to have the same gameplan. If Pant believes that he can win the test match, then good for him. But in a situation like this, Pujara has no reason to entertain something so insane.
Pujara was perfectly entitled to stonewall the whole day while Pant piled up runs. And if it got to a point where it looked like the win was actually doable, then Pujara might have changed his plan.
The most important part of the innings was that they don't lose. It's always better to only risk losing 1 wicket than 2. Pant can play at his own peril and if he fucks up then that's entirely his problem.
Paine's sledging went too far
Paine's chat is average at best. I don't know where this idea that he's a quick-witted mastermind even came from.
But to address the point - Paine lost that battle with Ashwin before he even replied.
In the middle of a Sydney test, when you can still win, and you're already chatting shit about the GABBA? Nah. Embarrassing. You've given up.
Ashwin replied and Paine calls him a dickhead. You lose again. You can't keep your cool because you've already accepted you can't win the game.
I would have no issue personally being called a dickhead if it came out of pure desperation. I would be surprised if it bothered Ashwin at all.
Wade throwing the ball at the batsmen was not on
Yeah maybe. It's hard to really have a strong opinion on. Collecting the ball and instantly throwing it at the stumps happens a lot. Even if the batsman never leaves their crease.
Simon Jones did it to Matt Hayden once, and hit him. Why did Jones throw it? Fuck I don't know, it's just something you do sometimes.
Wade didn't exactly throw the ball hard. If it was intentional, it wasn't harmful. If it wasn't intentional, it was pretty stupid to throw the ball at him in the first place. If the umpires took issue with it, Wade would have been in trouble. There's rules against these things.
If he gets fined, fair. If not, also fair.
Smith messing up the crease was not on
I agree. If I am batting, the crease is my personal space. Please don't touch it.
Lots of people saying that Smith can hardly do anything to the footmarks on a day 5 pitch - which is true - but that's not the point. If I'm batting and you're not, don't touch my fucking footmarks. They are mine.
Unless you're literally picking up the ball from the footmarks, there's no real reason a fielder should ever be standing in that zone.
I often use a blade of grass for my guard marker. I stand outside leg so I know no one else will stand on it. I would be seriously pissed off if someone came and just kicked it away for no reason.
On top of that - there are rules against causing 'avoidable' damage to the wicket.
Unless you're batting, don't ever touch the crease.
DRS woes
If you agree to play a game by a particular set of rules, then guess what? It's kind of tough shit when those rules go against you. That's kind of how life works.
Getting angry at a computer projection is just.... Well think about it for a second.
Vihari and Ashwin should have taken more runs when they were available
Why? I would argue that they took way more runs than they needed to. I don't know why they ever ran at all.
Vihari was injured. I've batted with a pulled hamstring before - there's no shot you can play that doesn't stretch it. It's horrible. The fact that he could bat at all is amazing.
There is no obligation for the players to actually entertain the fans. The players can be as boring as they like.
Jadeja shouldn't have been ready to come out and risk further injury
Well yes, but try telling a professional sportsman not to go back out and keep playing. It really doesn't work that way.
"[INSERT PLAYER HERE] is shit"
I have addressed this before. There's not a single person that has ever played test cricket who has been shit at the sport. Yes, you can be bad in a certain context - Rohit averaging 26 away from home for example. Or Wade averaging 30 as a full time batsman. But I would give my life to be able to average 30 in test. Fuck I can't even average 30 in my local 4th grade most years. My criticisms of these men are weak at best.
If you still wanted to blame someone, it would be the selectors. Not the players. Joe Burns getting selected was sad for me. If you're truly out of form, you're fucked. He hadn't scored a run in months, and then got selected anyway. It's not really like a player can just decline a selection - you'll never play again if you do.
And surprise surprise, we confirmed that yep, he's still definitely out of form. Bye bye Joe. Hope you enjoyed the experience on worldwide TV.
No one is bad on purpose. If they were, that's called match fixing and is illegal.

• And some final words:

These are just regular men. They happen to be very good at a sport. So good in fact that other people willingly pay to watch them be that good.
That's all cricket really is. Some of the fans are more serious about it than the players themselves.
You don't need to do that.

As an England fan, I can't help but be lulled into a false sense of security that we can retake the Ashes now after the recently concluded India in Australia series (Congratulations again to team India! What an achievement and a feat with the playing XI that won it at the Gabba).
The cracks are slowly opening and the constant reliance on Smudge and Lambshanks to make it a competitive total each test will probably takes its toll on them. Warner once fit will be a menace again and will probably return the favour in spades on Broady but the current top 6 is really shaky and I do like the cut of CG's jib (Signs of the next Pup, hope not but if so, good on him). It's going to be an interesting contest because I can't see them being a cohesive unit if they do relinquish or even drop Tim Paine after the series with South Africa because win or lose, he's not the man going forward to lead Australia's next generation...but but but, I will happily eat humble pie if he does a 180 and scores his maiden century and more and leads exceptionally well.
The bowling unit will always be a massive challenge and I hope this time around, we can really challenge Cummins and co. and especially Lyon (his antics and behaviour really deserves a walloping) because we were sorely missing runs last time and the series before that. On top of that, *CATCHES WIN MATCHES* You can't argue with this, you only have to look back to Headingley and how Stokes went beast-mode but gave every opportunity for Aus to win it.
It's hard to tell who our playing XV will be and especially our top 6, bowlers not too worried but the fitness and bowling pace will always have massive question marks...However! I'm excited because this year screams redemption. As it stands though, I do like our odds and only time will tell how we'll do, especially if we start finding some form in SL and later in India. Also! Calling it now but I reckon 2-1 to India purely because we're notoriously shite against spin and our spinners may not be as threatening as they look right now in SL but my lord, if we do pull off another 2012, we have every right to storm the fuck into Aus and all over and give a series performance that can match the winning team of 2010/11.
What's your thoughts and who do you think can really take it to the Aussies?
Edit: Thank you for the discussion so far fellas! Really enjoyed everyone’s verdict and that it’s good that we got a range of perspectives. Chuffed that we can still watch the cricket and see players giving it their all!

Let's be honest, the ICC's teams of the decade was a wee bit rubbish. Plenty have mentioned this on here, discussing it from a number of fronts. Personally, the fact that they picked a 'keeper' who didn't keep once in the decade says it all, but I figured I'd go over another way of picking such a team, just starting from a method and running with it.
Now, before I go any further, I would add that personally, the decade ended at the end of 2019. This is entirely a point about conventions, but one I feel should be noted before moving on to analyse this. I note this, in part, because I already gave my team of the decade last year, though by a slightly different method. So, what are these conventions? Well, as most would know, the Gregorian Calendar starts form 1 AD, so when noting centuries, they start from a year ending with 1, and end with a year ending 0, eg:

• 1st Century: 1 - 100
• 2nd Century: 101-200
• 19th Century: 1801-1900
• 20th Century: 1901-2000
• 21st Century: 2001-2100

It was also the point of contention for a bunch of people, who didn't like parties, who questioned whether 31 December 1999 was end the of the Millennium or not. Now, many would say 'who cares', and personally I agree, it's just a point about convention. That brings us perfectly to the point of decades though. There are two standard conventions:
1st: From 0-9, with decades labelled as 'the eighties' or '80s', the nineties' or '90s', etc. This aligns with how the decades are written, ie all years that start with an 8 are the 80s.
2nd: From 1-10, with decades labelled as '9th decade of the 20th century', '10th decade of the 20th century', etc. This aligns with how centuries are labelled.
Now, the second is very uncommon, and research on usage in the English speaking World tends to show that the first is overwhelmingly more common. Ask yourself, have you heard of 90s fashion, or fashion from the 10th decade? If you're in the later group, congrats, the ICC agrees with you.
Again, irrelevant, but to me it just seems odd to label the end of the decade as being now, but hey, the ICC can go against conventions if they wish. It's not really a mistake by them, but it really does set the stage for what they did.
Now, looking deeper, their convention is weirder than it first seems. The ICC lists Smith as having 7,040 runs in 69 Tests, and Kohli as having 20,396 in all international cricket. Now, the Smith figure confirms the December tests are not included, and this is also shown in the Kohli figure, which should be 20,781. The figure appears to be limited to prior to the current season, ie 2020/21, but starts with the beginning of 2011 as a year, not the 2010/11 season or the 2011. This means they've used a weird mixed convention, likely so they had time to consider things. Still, this is quite frankly just ridiculous, and I will be using figure current up to the end of the Test between New Zealand and Pakistan. This does mean that the period used by me is slightly different to the ICC's, but the ICC's period is just so silly that I won't be using it.
Anyhow, into methodology. I'll be using similar methods to my previous post. You can read that if you want a full rundown, but now the range is 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020 (there is no international cricket tomorrow). The team will be, as before:

• 5 × Batsmen
• 1 × Allrounder
• 1 × Wicketkeeper batsman†
• 4 × Bowlers

There will be no preference towards bowling or batting allrounders, nor will there be a preference to style of bowling.
Unlike last time, I will not be providing a breakdown by number and fraction of matches played, etc, instead opting for one team, ICC style. The only requirement for consideration is at least 10 Tests played, with the issue of small sample size dealt with more directly. To achieve this, I'll be using a similar manner to this post, where uncertainty in averages will be considered, as well as what the 'average player' achieves. This will gives us a kind of 'Bayesian rating', which in effect tells us the rating for that skill that we can be confident of, given the amount of data we have. That is, we'll be using Bayesian inference to convert the average we have, to the certainty given by the sample size, to see how good we can be confident they are. The 'average player' will be the average player for that skill set, this being batting in the top 6 for batters, and top 4 for bowlers, with an additional requirement of bowling at least 1 innings per match. All roles for batting and bowling are collapsed into one for the calculations themselves, ie openers, number 3, all rounder batting etc will all use the same average as part of the prior. All rounders and wicket keepers will follow their own ratings, and this will be discussed later.
What's more, I'll 'cheat' a bit with the uncertainties. For batsmen, it will be their batting average divided by the square root of dismissals. This works as the standard deviation of batting scores is approximately the average (within about 5-10% for virtually all players with 40+ innings); the impact of this difference is very small in almost all cases. For bowlers, the same will be done for average, while the uncertainty for WPM is estimated from 0.6×WPM divided by the square root of wickets taken. This is being used for keeping dismissals per match as well. This works about as well as the estimate for uncertainty of averages, though the reasons why this is the case is unknown to me at this time. Figuring out the reasons why might be an interesting investigation in and of itself, though I'd suspect more niche.
In terms of actual ratings, for batsmen, they will be rated by batting average, and selection will be broken into several groups, including openers, the number 3, and 2 middle order batsmen. Openers will only be compared in terms of statistics while opening, with the same going for the number 3. The other two positions will consider batting across any and all positions, ie openers and number 3 are deemed specialists, while 4-5 are not.
For bowlers, I'll be using a rating based on two metrics, the bowling average and wickets per match. That is, bowlers will be valued for both their contribution to wicket taking, and taking wickets cheaply. This is combined with a geometric mean of WPM and 1/average, and in effect includes economy and SR as part of the definition. Bowlers will be selected as either seamers or spinners, and the best 3 seamers and best spinner will be selected for the side.
As to allrounders, the geometric mean of batting and bowling ratings will be used, and the best allrounder by this will be added to the side. In order to generate a usable definition of the 'average allrounder', statistics only from players who have batted in the top 8 in at least 10 matches, and bowling at least 1 innings per match played, will be considered. This said, their full records are considered the ratings themselves.
For wicket keepers, I'll be using the disgusting metric from this post, just so it's not purely about batting average. This is just the geometric mean of batting average and dismissals per match. It's sickening, but it will do for our purposes, and will at least give some value to keeping, though biased by the kinds of dismissals their team gets. The 'average player' used here will be the average of all eligible wicket keepers, this will smooth out players who dominate, or struggle, with the bat to some extent.
The final side will be put in order of batting average, highest to lowest, excluding the specialist positions of openers and number 3. Players will also be picked for roles in the following order:

1. Wicket Keepers
2. All Rounder
3. Opener
4. Number 3
5. Top Order Batsman
6. Bowler

ie if a player would make it on their batting or bowling alone, they will still go in as an allrounder first. The same with batsmen as keepers.
Anyhow, below are the results, top 10 for each role:

Openers

Player	Mat	Inns	Runs	Ave	B-Ave
DA Warner (AUS)	84	152	7205	49.69	47.60
AN Cook (ENG)	97	176	7482	44.54	43.61
Azhar Ali (PAK)	20	37	1556	45.76	42.03
CJL Rogers (AUS)	24	46	1996	44.36	41.81
TWM Latham (NZ)	54	94	3867	42.97	41.78
MA Agarwal (INDIA)	13	21	1005	47.86	41.67
CH Gayle (WI)	12	23	841	46.72	40.89
GC Smith (SA)	27	48	1843	41.89	40.25
D Elgar (SA)	56	100	3757	40.40	39.77
S Dhawan (INDIA)	34	58	2315	40.61	39.63

So, Warner and Cook are the picks here, and fairly decisively, as would be expected.

Number 3

Player	Match	Inns	Runs	Ave	B-Ave
KC Sangakkara (SL)	39	71	4068	61.64	51.84
KS Williamson (NZ)	72	124	6283	56.10	51.44
SPD Smith (AUS)	17	29	1744	67.08	46.99
CA Pujara (INDIA)	72	115	5314	48.31	46.06
HM Amla (SA)	61	100	4503	48.42	45.82
M Labuschagne (AUS)	10	17	1203	70.76	44.56
Azhar Ali (PAK)	56	95	4000	43.96	42.54
GS Ballance (ENG)	16	29	1254	46.44	41.80
IR Bell (ENG)	11	15	742	53.00	41.65
R Dravid (INDIA)	13	24	943	42.86	39.83

Williamson narrowly misses out to Sangakkara here, though given how good he was at 3, it's understandable. Smith sneakily into third is a surprise to me, but honestly, the field is pretty weak outside Sangakkara and Williamson.

Other Top Order

Player	Mat	Inns	Runs	Average	B-Ave
SPD Smith (AUS)	71	127	7050	64.09	56.00
KC Sangakkara (SL)	40	77	4156	57.72	50.52
V Kohli (INDIA)	87	147	7318	53.42	50.24
KS Williamson (NZ)	79	138	6665	53.32	49.93
S Chanderpaul (WI)	35	61	2804	60.96	49.40
Younis Khan (PAK)	53	97	4659	54.17	49.32
AB de Villiers (SA)	49	80	4063	54.17	48.83
MJ Clarke (AUS)	47	86	3946	51.92	47.57
DA Warner (AUS)	84	155	7244	48.95	47.05
Misbah-ul-Haq (PAK)	54	95	3994	49.93	46.48

So, Smith in comfortably, and Virat joins him with Sangakkara already in at 3. Williamson again misses out, and narrowly as before.

All Rounder

Player	Mat	Bat-A	WPM	Bowl-A	Rating	AllRond	B-AllRond
R Ashwin (INDIA)	73	27.48	5.137	25.22	0.4513	3.521	3.034
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	50	35.67	4.320	24.49	0.4200	3.871	2.996
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH)	35	44.72	3.857	30.57	0.3552	3.985	2.977
BA Stokes (ENG)	67	37.85	2.358	31.41	0.2740	3.220	2.898
VD Philander (SA)	64	24.04	3.500	22.32	0.3960	3.085	2.814
JO Holder (WI)	45	32.05	2.578	27.95	0.3037	3.120	2.783
MA Starc (AUS)	59	22.16	4.271	26.75	0.3996	2.976	2.760
MM Ali (ENG)	60	28.98	3.017	36.60	0.2871	2.884	2.727
MG Johnson (AUS)	32	22.47	4.250	27.07	0.3963	2.984	2.700
CR Woakes (ENG)	38	27.52	2.947	29.30	0.3171	2.954	2.698

Lack of cricket over the period costs Shakib here, and honestly, I'd give it to Jadeja over Ashwin personally, but Ashwin it is. Stokes' rise in the last few years is notable however, but he remains some way behind the big 3 here. For those who demand a 4th seamer, he'd be the pick.

Wicket Keeper

Player	Mat	Inns	Ave	Dis	DPM	Rating	B-Rating
Q de Kock (SA)	46	77	40.31	206	4.478	13.435	11.98
AB de Villiers (SA)	21	33	63.06	83	3.952	15.788	11.80
BJ Watling (NZ)	64	97	40.17	249	3.891	12.501	11.69
JM Bairstow (ENG)	48	85	37.85	181	3.771	11.947	11.34
RR Pant (INDIA)	14	23	38.32	65	4.643	13.338	11.18
MJ Prior (ENG)	40	63	39.04	142	3.550	11.772	11.15
TD Paine (AUS)	29	45	31.39	134	4.621	12.043	11.13
Sarfaraz Ahmed (PAK)	48	84	37.34	163	3.396	11.260	10.95
LD Chandimal (SL)	24	43	41.08	72	3.000	11.101	10.77
MS Dhoni (INDIA)	37	63	34.84	126	3.405	10.892	10.72

So, the top three really stand out. AB's excellent cameo as a keeper stands out, but is too few matches to have high certainty. There's no surprise about the other two, but ultimately BJ's handy work this decade isn't enough to finish de Kock off, who is ultimately the pick here.

Seamers

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rating	Bayes
PJ Cummins (AUS)	32	153	4.781	21.52	0.4714	0.4133
K Rabada (SA)	43	197	4.581	22.96	0.4467	0.4091
DW Steyn (SA)	48	207	4.313	22.56	0.4373	0.4056
JM Anderson (ENG)	100	395	3.950	24.33	0.4029	0.3918
JJ Bumrah (INDIA)	16	76	4.750	20.68	0.4792	0.3900
N Wagner (NZ)	51	219	4.294	26.33	0.4039	0.3848
MA Starc (AUS)	59	252	4.271	26.75	0.3996	0.3837
VD Philander (SA)	64	224	3.500	22.32	0.3960	0.3811
RJ Harris (AUS)	22	93	4.227	23.33	0.4256	0.3801
TG Southee (NZ)	65	271	4.169	27.00	0.3929	0.3798

So, the three to go through are Cummins, Rabada and Steyn. Anderson misses out, and fairly comfortably in the end, with Bumrah already challenging him due to a simply sublime start to his test career; those are crazy good numbers in your first 16 Tests. That said, Anderson would have missed out just going by average as well, of course. The ICC's own pick, Broad, is 11th on this list, and even that is largely just on the raw amount of cricket played decreasing uncertainty compared to those around him.

Spinners

Player	Mat	W	WPM	Ave	Rating	Bayes
R Ashwin (INDIA)	73	375	5.137	25.22	0.4513	0.4255
HMRKB Herath (SL)	69	355	5.145	26.30	0.4423	0.4180
Saeed Ajmal (PAK)	26	145	5.577	25.46	0.4680	0.4064
RA Jadeja (INDIA)	50	216	4.320	24.49	0.4200	0.3955
Yasir Shah (PAK)	43	227	5.279	30.85	0.4136	0.3899
PP Ojha (INDIA)	13	71	5.462	24.27	0.4744	0.3829
Abdur Rehman (PAK)	18	79	4.389	26.85	0.4043	0.3666
S Shillingford (WI)	11	56	5.091	29.00	0.4190	0.3624
NM Lyon (AUS)	98	394	4.020	31.64	0.3565	0.3527
Shakib Al Hasan (BDESH)	35	135	3.857	30.57	0.3552	0.3467

As would be expected, Ashwin would be the pick, but because he's in as the allrounder, Herath is in instead. There's a good argument that on balance it should be Ashwin in here, and Jadeja in as the allrounder, but I'll stick with the 'top of the list' method here. You could also argue Ashwin and Jadeja being in just to strengthen the batting, but again, we'll stick to that method.

Final XI

Position	Player	Bat Ave	DPM	WPM	Bowl Ave
1	Warner	49.69	NA	NA	NA
2	Cook	44.54	NA	NA	NA
3	Sangakkara	61.64	NA	NA	NA
4	Smith	64.09	NA	0.197	57.64
5	Kohli*	53.42	NA	0.000	NA
6	de Kock†	40.31	4.478	NA	NA
7	Ashwin	27.48	NA	5.137	25.22
8	Cummins	16.54	NA	4.781	21.52
9	Herath	14.92	NA	5.145	26.30
10	Steyn	13.53	NA	4.313	22.56
11	Rabada	11.43	NA	4.581	22.96

Please note that while the adjusted averages were used in the decision, the final list is just given with the raw figures for comparison. Virat was given the captaincy as I'm not convinced he'd play if he wasn't, even in a hypothetical best XI.
In any case, I feel that's a better take on this than the ICC's, particularly given the keeper has actually kept wicket this decade. The choice of time, and team, was poor by the ICC, but ultimately all this is just for a laugh anyhow. The figures themselves could also justify some different permutations, like AB in for de Kock, and Jadeja in for Herath if you want a more batting allrounder, with Ashwin playing primarily as a spinner. The latter may be useful, as that side has a very long tail. That said, they're notionally taking 24 wickets per match, so they'll be right. In all seriousness, it's an interesting question of what would happen if you put 5 players who are so dominant with the ball together in one side. Would their averages improve while the WPM decrease? That's an interesting investigation in and of itself.
In any case, while there are a few rough edges in this analysis, particularly around the keeper, hopefully it's a bit of food for thought. At the very least, it actually covers the 'decade', and has a keeper that kept this decade, so there's that.

Edit: Now that I reread it, that title's a bit poor. It should have been: A Statistical Analysis to Determine a Team of the "Decade" to Improve Upon the ICC's. Oh well, too late now.

Australia: Billy Murdoch. Although he did play for Australia he is 1 of 10 English cricketers born in Australia. He was the first player to make a test 200 and was a talented keeper.
England: WG Grace. The first GOAT of the game played cricket for almost 50 years. Was a sensational batsman and also a pretty good bowler
South Africa: Kevin Pietersen. Born in Pietermaritzburg, KP was a very talented batsman. He had his test career ruined a bit due to him not having a good relationship with a few of the players but still had a great career
West Indies: Devon Malcolm. Born in Jamaica Devon Malcolm was a very quick bowler. He took figures of 9/57 against South Africa once and spearheaded the English attack during the 90s
New Zealand: Ben Stokes. One of the greatest all rounders in the modern era Stokes is known for 'winning' the 2019 World Cup against the country of his birth and also breaking Australians hearts a month later in Leeds.
India: K.S Ranjitsinhji. One of the early greats of the game known for almost creating the leg glance, although couldn't play for India he did play a big part in Indian cricket and now the Indian First Class competition is named after him
Pakistan: Owais Shah. Drops a lot in standard here, Shah was a decent cricketer playing 6 tests and 71 ODI's for England. He never made a test 100 but he did make 1 ODI 100 with his 107* against India at the Oval
Sri Lanka N/A
Zimbabwe: Graeme Hick. Was one of the great county cricketers in his 20 odd year career. He did play for Zimbabwe but it was before they had Test status. He went over to try and play for England because he thought Zimbabwe were a long way from test status but by the time he played for England Zimbabwe were only a year away from playing Test cricket.
Bangladesh N/A
Ireland: Eoin Morgan. Was the captain of the 2019 World Cup 'winning' team and has been ODI captain for quite a few years now. Before he played for England he represented Ireland in the 2007 World Cup and captained them at some point as well. Hasn't been quite as successful at test level with just 16 Tests averaging 30.43.
Afghanistan: N/A

This is a bit of light-hearted malicious compliance that happened a few years ago when I was in college.
Our college has an annual cricket tournament managed by the students, with faculty and staff also allowed to participate, and it was organized on lines similar to how the Indian Premier League (cricketing equivalent of NBA) is organized.
Each year, students would bid real money to form a team. The top eight bidders get to form a team named after a city of their choice, and this would then be followed by player “auctions” where each team was given a purse of some fixed amount, and could use that to bid for players who would come up for auction in a random order. A bit like fantasy, except you are also competing with the other team owners to “purchase” each player.
I and a few of my friends pooled a bid together, and we were among the top eight bidders, so we got to choose a city. Since we were all from different cities, by common consensus we chose a place that is known for its beaches and parties. We were also allowed to add a descriptive word to the team name (like Giants for New York Giants), and we chose something so that the acronym of the team name was the same as one of the events held on campus. An event, which while not secret, was not discussed openly for certain reasons. To spice up things a bit, we also chose a team logo that looked similar to something associated with the event, though on closer look, it was obvious that it was for something completely different.
When we submitted our team name, the organizers flipped, and rejected the name, and asked us to choose another. The reason given was that the team names and logos would be mentioned in a presentation that was given to the incoming students of the next academic year, and they did not want our logo and acronym to give away details of the event that was not openly discussed. They even pointed to a line from their rule book to justify their stance.
Now they were not wrong in saying they wanted to prevent any slippages. However, the name and logo would only have been an in-joke among everyone on campus, and for someone to guess at the presence of the event merely by these would have taken the deductive abilities of Sherlock Holmes. In other words, a very tiny risk, yes, but not worth fretting about.
We made our case, and a few other students not associated with our bid agreed with us, but the organizers would not budge. “Choose any other name, we will accept it” was the response.
If you are being stubborn, we will maliciously comply! We relented, and chose a team named after Las Vegas! This again put the organizers in a tizzy. The team should be named after an Indian city, was the response this time. Of course, we were having none of it. Their rule book had nothing in it about teams only being named after Indian cities.
“But that is implied, we are a college in India, with Indian students, playing a tournament modelling along the Indian Premier League, so it is understood that teams would also be named after an Indian city.” Well, no. We did have a few students from outside India. We asked the organizers whether they would deny those students, had they been successful in a bid, the opportunity to form a team named after their place of birth, which was outside India. They hemmed and hawed at this point, but were unwilling to relent. I was even accused of trying to find loopholes, to which my response was that I couldn’t really say what their intent on the rules were, all I could do was interpret the rules as they were written!
To be honest, we were all being brats here. We didn’t really care so much about the team name, but this was college, and we were not about to miss an opportunity to take the piss.
We were at a stalemate at this point, and agreed to defer to the judgement of one of the faculty members, who also happened to be the student affairs co-ordinator. Our meeting with the faculty member lasted all of two minutes. He agreed with us that the organizers were being overly paranoid, and allowed us to use our original name and logo.
We celebrated by designing our jersey in colours that represent the event, and made the other team owners wish they had thought of our idea first.
As it turned out, no one from the incoming batch of students caught on to what our team name and logo were supposed to symbolize, and all was well with the world. As far as I know, the rules were not updated either, so they are ripe for abuse by the future generations.
Edit: Since everyone wants to know what the event is, u/TheMageMan got it right in the comments below. It wasn't just a club though, was an open campus event, and attended by alumni, and even the odd professor.

Is Virat Kohli the worst batsmen you have seen in international cricket?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a batsmen worse than him in international cricket and I watch associate cricket too. He wasn’t even able to hack it against Moeen Ali and now Dom Bess forget about Gary Lyon and Rakheem the dream Cornwall. I was a bit confused to see who’s worse, Sublime Gill or King Kohli but at least aside can hit an odd six but by god this Chokli guy is something else. Wouldn’t even make into Namibia’s women’s team and the fact that he scored the fastest hundred in India in ODIs, it tells a lot about him

I was randomly watching ‘How the 2011 World Cup was won’ last night and you think 2011 you think the Ireland defeat but I’d forgotten just the ridiculous levels England went too make things difficult for themselves in that tournament, here’s a brief summary:
Game 1: Got thunder cunted by Ryan ten Doeschate as Netherland set us 293 to win, made the chase a bit difficult but got over the line by 6 wickets with an over to spare.
Game 2: Tied with India despite being set 339 to win thanks to a rapid 99 ball century from Andrew Strauss(rapid by Straussy terms..)
Game 3: Set Ireland 328 to win, had them 150-5 before getting brutalised by Kevin O’Brien.
Game 4: Bowled out for 173 by South Africa, manage to win despite SA being 130-3 and cruising.
Game 5: Lose to Bangladesh, setting 223 to win and despite having then 150-odd for 8..
Game 6: Beat West Indies, needing the win to qualify, set West Indies 223. West Indies needed 22 with 4 wickets in hand, England won by 18 runs.
Quarter final: Finally ran out of steam altogether and got pumped by Sri Lanka, setting 228 to win thanks to 86(120) from Jonathan Trott, lost by 10 wickets...
Baring in mind this was coming off the back of the 2010 t20 World Cup win and it had started to feel like our white ball cricket was coming together it ended up a false dawn with an insane level of what can only be described consistent inconsistency...They had an attitude of never giving up in any game whilst simultaneously shitting the bed at every possible opportunity.
Genuinely quite fun to watch though not for the right reasons...

Let's do it boys. Share your all time Aussie test XI.
​
Caveat about mine: I'm only choosing players I have seen and remember. I'm not into comparing statistics about old blokes who I never even saw play. Do what you wanna do though. I am 28 years old (born 1992) so I'm just a bit too young to truly remember Alan Border's era. I didn't include an all rounder, I reckon they're over rated and should only be picked if you have a legend.
​
The Team
Openers
1 Matthew Hayden - Absolute beast. Best Aussie opener I've ever seen and arguably the best from any country. An opening batsman having a test average of 50 is unbelievable. Very dominant player and can go ballistic and destroy an attack if needed. Has an away average of 42 which is very respectable. Averaged almost 60 against India.
2 Justin Langer - Mostly chosen because of his synergy with Hayden. We all know how well they fought together. He is a perfect foil for Hayden. His healthy average of 45 is nothing to scoff at and he seemed to rise for big occasions.
Those who just missed out:

• David Warner - Definitely an amazing talent. But to be honest, I view him as a home ground hero. His record away from home is very average. Only 6 hundreds at 34. When the ball is moving around he never seems to perform and he is always odds on to have a brain explosion and play a stupid shot. I respect him and he is a freak - but he doesn't make the side.
• Simon Katich - 61 innings opening the batting in test cricket with an average of 50. The only reason Langer got the nod above him is pure longevity and the fact he is proven to bat amazingly with Hayden. Close call.
• Mark Taylor - Great player. I just feel like Langer is slightly ahead of him.

Batsmen

1. Ricky Ponting - Duh. Bloke was a legend. No one comes close at the 3 position. Unfortunately he did have a period of time towards the end of his career where he fell away. But he was so dominant for so long. There were periods of time where I thought he was better than Tendulkar and Lara.
   
2. Steve Smith - I always find it hard to judge players who are still playing. It seems like I need a 5 year period after they retire to truly judge them. Regardless, Smith is statistically the best since Bradman. His unorthodox technique is so effective and what I love about Smith is how good his record is away from home. Truly a rare and special talent.
   
   1. Steve Waugh (c) - Legend of the game and a perfect number 5 batsmen. It's rare these days to find a number 5 batsman who is so solid and brilliant in their own right. He played 142 innings at number 5 and averaged 56. Overall test average of 50 and his away record is astounding with an average of 55. Unbelievable batsman. He is my captain pick as well. Even though he was in charge of such a dominant team his tactics were sound and I loved his attitude on and off the field.
   2. Michael Hussey - Maybe a surprising pick for some. His career was not as long as it should have been, but he still managed 79 matches with an average of 51.53. The reason he is here is because I feel he is a perfect number 6. He has the ability to smash it around the ground. He is an amazing batsman with the tail. Yet he also has the ability to play a traditional, long innings.

Those who just missed out:

• Michael Clarke - If he was going to be picked it would have been at 6. Huss was a better number 6 in my opinion. I also am not a fan of Clarke's away record - he only averaged 39 overseas. Still have immense respect for the guy and that period of golden form he had was tremendous.

Wicket Keeper

1. Adam Gilchrist - Lol who else even comes close? GOAT. Explosive with the bat and great with the gloves. Him and Hussey batting together at 4/450 would be pornographic.

Bowlers

1. Shane Warne (VC) - The greatest bowler I've ever seen. He is my vice captain because I think he had a lot of good ideas on the field.
   
2. Pat Cummins - My 2nd modern player to make the list. The bloke impresses the hell out of me. Bowls his fucking heart out. Averages 21 with the ball both at home and away. Even when the pitch does nothing he always looks so threatening. Will go down as a legend of Aussie cricket providing he stays fit.
   
3. Mitchell Johnson - I want my team to have an aggressive, out and out fast bowler. And Johnson edges out Lee and Starc for me. When he was in his golden form he was almost unplayable. If he has an off day the other bowlers will be able to cover for him.
   
4. Glenn McGrath - No brainer. Legend. He and Warne bowling together was a perfect match.
   

Those who just missed out:

• Stuart Clark - Average of 23. Similar mold to McGrath and Hazlewood. Not as good as McGrath, but better than Hazlewood. On a green pitch this guy could destroy batsmen.
• Stuart MacGill - Used to out bowl Warney when they played together. Huge turner of the ball. So unlucky to have lived in the same era as Warne. On a turning pitch I would drop Hussey, bat Gilchrist at 6 and play MacGill and Warne together.
• Ryan Harris - Unfortunately he was so injury prone. He was a brilliant bowler and I feel like people forget how destructive he was. Average of 23 with a good strike rate.

I find this particular series as "a series of comebacks" from both the teams. In the first Test, India were in a comfortable position to win the match after taking a 50 run lead over the Aussies. The odds were poised towards the Indians by the end of 2nd day's play. Who would have thought that one of India's best sides in history would crumble to the Aussies to their lowest total in their history? 36 all out. Not even a possible scenario to happen. Australian bowlers consistently exposed the subcontinent batsman's weakness on the off stump. Josh Hazelwood and Pat Cummins bowled the dream spells one could possibly think of. The team who scored the lowest total in history to win a Test match. It's almost preposterous to think that it might happen.
No Kohli. 36 all out. All the cricket pundits were predicting a 4-0 whitewash over the Indians. Then, Indians led by Rahane restrict Aussies to a meagre 195. And then skipper Rahane, who was under all sort of scrutiny for running out Kohli in the previous game had a massive task in hand. After India were just above 100, Rahane had to anchor the innings and post a total above 300 in a tricky track at the MCG. He just battered the Aussie bowlers and reached to a sensational century (this knock I regard it as one of the best knocks in Indian cricket history). A partnership with Jadeja sets up India's score over 300. The Indian bowlers once again fought back removing some quick wickets. After Green's resilience, Aussies managed to put up just 200 on the board. Requiring 70, the debutant Gill looked flawless in his innings and fittingly Captain Rahane sealed the victory. A team that got bundled out for the lowest total in 65 years and losing their best batsman to winning a match in Australia proves what kind of a team this Indian team is!
While the all the hype was for India's comeback victory, on the flip side, Australia's premier batsman Steve Smith was highly criticised for his form in the series. He consistently was set up by R Ashwin and got out cheaply for a low score. He had just 10 runs in 3 innings in that series!!! You don't expect these stats from the 'next Bradman'. Smith also lost his No. 1 spot in Test rankings due to his poor form. At the end of 2020, it was Kane Williamson who finished on top. Now coming back to the SCG Test, the match was set up by the debutant Will Pucovski and Marnus Labuschagne. Then arrived Steve Smith. Most of them once again expected him to fall. The intent was there. He started counter attacking the Indian bowlers. Finishes with 30+ by day 1. Next day, quite literally dominates India and at the same time continues his twitching at the crease. After he found his hands, Smith resumed his normal service in 2021 with another century in his kitty. Smith single handedly took Aussies from 300 to 338. Shepherded the tail brilliantly as he had done in the Ashes. As he does always, he silenced everyone with a fantastic 131 off 226 balls...
As they say, "A wounded lion is always dangerous". This series has been a series of comebacks. Let's see who next performs from all the odds. May the best team win!
Cheers !

https://youtu.be/X-srZCXzCKE
Here's the comment by him, putting Count Dankula in his place.
"Don't care, didn't ask. Plus you're white.
But seriously, I feel like most of Dankula's response is just him confusing a minor critique of one old video with an attack on his entire character but I'll leave a bit more for anyone who isn't satisfied. The point of my video was simply: Someone showed me Dank's vid a couple of years ago, it was interesting to me and in light of the conversations around the BLM protests, I thought it could be relevant. I didn't 'go looking' for anything and I even mentioned that so I guess that would be an assumption of intent (one of many).
Note 1
It's not a journalists job to make you look good. They are well within their rights to reinterpret your actions. Dankula would know – he did the same to me and accused me of lying for 40 minutes without being able to correct a single one of my facts. Even from a tactical perspective, talking to the likes of Tommy Robinson and Alex Jones – two of the craziest, most dishonest journalists on earth – is a terrible optical decision and, incidentally, gives the journalists you turned down quite a bit to talk about. At the end of his response, Dankula shows himself eating up the 'Corbyn is an anti-semite' meme so it seems he only cares about deceit in the press when it suits him. People who get far more shit than Markus does will still show up for interviews and try to get their point across because that's the price you pay for activism. Some have thicker skin than others, I guess.
Note 2
You can highlight something and also be derogatory so I don't know why he's making a fuss about that. This is just pedantry. The P*ki bastard analogy, however, is interesting. Cards on the table – if Bankole had gone into a shop and started ranting about there being too many white dudes here, that would be a problem. Only he didn't. He said it in a portrait gallery, whilst talking about dead people in a video that is specifically about the unequal race relations that produced the symbols of wealth and status that he's looking at. This reminds me of the time CNN took some guests on where they scratched their heads over whether or not 'cracker' was as racist as the 'n-word'. They even did a survey and found out that even most white people agreed that the two were incomparable. That's because there are power relations that underlie different slurs.
The n-word is attached to centuries of systematic racial abuse that gives it a weight of emotional resonance that 'dead random white dude' does not. Even white supremacists understand this point. Why else do they use slurs so obsessively? It's because that's how they express their power and they know other people can't effectively do it back to them. Of course, black people can be racist but is this video proof that the artist himself is? No – more on that throughout.
Note 3
The portrait gallery gotcha point was freakishly obtuse. Did he not bother to check whether or not Wilkie did portraits of ordinary people? He didn't need to check because I mentioned it and even showed one in the clip he played. Incidentally there are also plenty of portraits of Jamaican slaves who worked plantations owned by Scottish people. Would it be so radical to put a couple of them up in the National Portrait Gallery? Considering how hard these people worked, it could very easily be easily argued that they contributed more to Scottish history than some of the useless highborns who are currently on display in there.
Note 4
I will concede that it was cheeky of me to point out Dankula naming the wrong person. It was an easy mistake and not really indicative of anything apart from that I found it funny because he did in a video that was intended to call out racism.
Note 5
Dankula is insisting he did agree with the artist on slavery but didn't attack that because he was only concerned about the artist's racist comments. This is simply false. He also accuses the artist of shitting on Scottish culture and when the artist was making very obvious references to slavery, Dankula's response was to pedantically shout 'you weren't there!'. He was dismissive of the argument, even when the artist wasn't talking about whiteness.
The fact that he didn't acknowledge slavery was odd to me because slavery is the thing that makes all the difference. If he said 'random white dude' aggressively to some white lad in the street, yeah, that's a problem but he's talking in the context of a racial power dynamic where your race was the difference between being free and being in chains.
The entire concept of whiteness didn't even exist before slavery!
“Only after the racialization of slavery by around 1680 did whiteness and blackness come to represent racial categories. “ TJ Guess, “The Social Construction of Whiteness” (this took 3 seconds to find on google wtf etc)
It seems like Markus is just using the schoolboys definition of racism without caring for the nuances that go with it. Whiteness isn't just about skin colour. Irish and Italian people were initially excluded from it and - depending on who you ask today - so are white-skinned Jews.
White, in this context is a symbol of status and privilege that wasn't afforded to black people. Conveniently enough, Markus misses out the part where I showed the artist punching at the painting of the explorer who owned a white Irish slave but whatever.
Note 6
When he skips over my entire section on slavery (your audience could have learned something, Markus!) he also ends up skipping the part where I argue that the artist is not 'shitting on scottish culture' as Dankula says, but rather, reminding us of how the contribution of non-white people is removed. Even if you're against putting portraits of slaves up in the gallery (I'd love to hear why), he surely could have included the part where I spoke about how the NPG is full of slave owners and merchants and most of their descriptions don't mention their connections to the trade.
Note 7
The Burns section is plain dishonesty. He cuts the clip just seconds before I say that I still love Burns. Weird, man.
Note 8
The drugs joke was funny. On yirsel.
Note 9
I said liberals enjoy Jon Stewart. I didn't say liberals only enjoy Jon Stewart... Aristotle. Everyone knows what you can generally expect Nish Kumars audience to be like. That's why he was very predictably booed off stage when he tried to do his political routine in a cricket club of Brexiteers. I like Geoff Norcott much more than I like Nish Kumar (twat) but whatever.
Note 10
If Young Fathers don't count as Scottish culture because they produce rap then Led Zeppelin don't count as British culture because they produced (well, plagiarised eheh) American blues-based rock. Out of interest, at what point did bagpipe music become Scottish culture? After all, bagpipes came from ancient Egypt. The sushi analogy is fun and would make sense if Young Fathers were covering rap songs. A better analogy would have been Chicken Tikka Masala, an Indian derivative that was created in Scotland (people in India have no idea what that shit is). If I was feeling malicious, I would say this sounds like the kind of argument an ethnostater would make but it's more likely just a confusion between 'Scottish culture' and 'traditional Scottish culture'.
Note 11
Yes, I know Dankula has made fun of fascists in his comedy shows. It's a good thing I never said all of his comedy would appeal to fascists... Aristotle. Not that I think making fun of fascists is immediate proof that someone is not, themselves, a fascist. A more cunning fascist would do well to disguise their intentions to ease their ideas into the mainstream - something they've always done. By the way, I don't think Dankula is a fascist, why do I need to keep treading on eggshells like this? It's political correctness gone mad."
​
On a side note, Count Made another embarrassing "response" where he repeatedly calls LonerBox a "p*dophile."
Lovely, just lovely.

The last time India and Australia met in India, it took Steve Smith just two innings to produce Wisden’s test innings of the year 2017, his almost unbelievable 109 at Pune. The last time India toured Australia against Smith, his first three scores were 162 not out, 52 not out and 133. This time, he has 2 runs in 3 innings. From 2013/14 until 2017/18, Smith made at least 2 hundreds in every home summer. He was unable to do so in 2018/19 against India due to his temporary ban.
He returned to test cricket in Herculean fashion. We all know the story of his 2019 Ashes. Something that Smith seemed to hold, apart from refined technique and god-like hand eye coordination, was his patience and concentration. I hadn’t seen Smith play a false stroke in years, maybe that guide to gully in Cape Town or that leave from Jadeja, but still. Smith is clearly from the Steve Waugh grain. I am not just “batting”, I am utilising all my concentration and will power to hold my wicket.
When he came home for the 2019/20 summer against Pakistan and New Zealand he had a fairly lean summer, by his standards. He passed 50 twice, but they were gruelling knocks. His duel with Neil Wagner was well noted, but his form slump was mostly covered by David Warner and Marnus Labuschagne’s 7 combined centuries, and the fact that Australia had enough first innings runs to win all of their 5 test matches. But now, with Australia’s top order under the microscope from a stronger Indian bowling unit, Smith’s runs are notably absent.
Let’s take a look at his dismissals since:
4 vs Pakistan - lack of concentration! A dirty slog against the worlds best leg spinner before he was even set.
36 vs Pakistan - lack of concentration! Under edges slogging a length ball. Seriously, who under edges in test cricket.
43 vs New Zealand - lack of concentration! Hooks it straight to leg gully.
16 vs New Zealand - lack of concentration! Hooks it straight to square leg.
85 vs New Zealand - genuine dismissal, great innings against some good Wagner bowling, trying to will himself out of form, undone by a short one in the gully after 250 odd balls.
7 vs New Zealand - lack of concentration! Hooks it straight to backward square/gully ish.
1 vs India - not a lack of concentration per se. Cramped up by good field settings by India but he looked far from his fluent best. Genuine dismissal against Ashwin but you rarely see him so negative, 1 off almost 40 balls.
1 not out - N/A
0 - lack of concentration! Turned straight round the corner to leg slip.
So what do you reckon? Obviously everyone has slumps in form, but my opinion is that Smith hasn’t been showing his trademark concentration and application. Or it could be that he is out of form and coincidentally he’s been getting out in ways that he only is because he’s out of form. Do you agree?

Jerry Seinfeld - I can't help but imagine the comedians who actually go out there and are truly killing it in the game at every level clenching their teeth at delivery and the touch-and-go writing quality of this absolute legend in comedy show business. His body of work speaks to itself, and it's hard to know why he seemed determined to re-prove his worth by doing something that he didn't need to. And while this type of thinking may say more about me than of his professional style, I did get quite tickled at the idea of the International viewers outside the United States struggling to understand what a "death-row inmate last meal at an all-you-can-eat buffet" is, or would even look like, and for that, the first 2 minutes of the special are worth it.
You can skip to minute 4 if you count yourself among the living.
Taylor Tomlinson - Plenty of critics might say she got too much too early with her career, but I think that type of critique is born of jealousy. I naturally second her praises and second-guess her critics, because she puts in the work, and it shows. Is she a prodigy? No. Is she on her way to eclipse those twice her age? In ways that would confuse even a flat-Earther.
Let me be the first to say, doing woke comedy is easy, but doing it well is hard, and she bridges that gap with layers that any fan of comedy can appreciate and understand immediately. The nuance of Facebook being the medium of dim wit, occupied by people we all know, and cutting with left-wing perspective can make anyone an instant fan even before her smart misdirect before taking us into a bit that requires just a bit of trust from the audience that she earned in spades the moment earlier. If I would give a note at all, I'd say it was a bit rushed, but true to the special's title, the white-knuckle cadence works to her target audience: people her own age.
If only she had stopped there, she takes us on a low-brow tour of a woman's perspective of other women's lives and their casual disdain for men in general that passes for fun, but can easily leave a careful listener wondering whether it was just a joke that missed the mark or some echo of a mean spirit on the keyboard or notepad of a moment soon after a failed relationship.
And to be as fair as I can, men get away with murder in comedy when bringing up the fairer sex. I've been a new fan of comedy for the last 4 years now, and I won't pretend I know the rate of exchange between who says what and how or why it's different, but male comedians joke about rape, mostly because men joke about rape with one another in their private lives without ill will. Women have the type of disdain and contempt for useless men that Taylor jokes about regularly, and certainly with more regularity than actual rape happens. So, while I think she made a painful situation funny with skill, wit, and timing, I hope she does better with it on her next go at it.
Without defending myself too much on the point, I'll just say treating men badly by itself isn't any more funny than rape is by itself.
Tom Segura - It really would take me far too much time and effort to explain how well he does everything and why it works, and it would be even harder for me to be a believable critic. What I'll do instead, in the spirit of the new year, is to just say why I think Tom has found his true calling. After all of his decades of skill building and sharpening comic chops and stepping over his mistakes in stride on his way to one of the top 10 - some would say top 5 - comics in the world, he speaks to us like we're all adults. He respects us as much as he should, and when he disrespects us, we don't lose an ounce of respect for him. He has become an admirable person who happens to be funny. He's a little too jaded, a little too blue, a lot of cynical, but he lets us believe it in a way that allows us to consider him "one of us", even if he would hate our guts if we were in the same room.
The bit Netflix chose from this special is one he has remastered time and time again about "people he hates", but he does it with fresh and relatable context while still managing to be unexpected with his word choice that welcomes everyone to his storytelling style. It can come off as "written" after the second or third viewing, but I would be guilty of nit-picking if I said anything more on that point.
And, honestly, the ways he seems to fit in poking fun at the mentally handicapped without using any of their banned words, with a wink and a nod, edges on a sinful fan-boy word, "genius".
Jack Whitehall - I do my best to rate comics on how funny they are, but it bears mentioning that this is one of the UK's best. He might not roll off the tongue in a "top" list, but what Jack does is use all the tools comedians are allowed to get his points across, and that is worth the money people pay to be entertained.
Glazing over the feigned rage, the feigned intensity of the mundane, the annoyingly blue eyes, and the unnecessary, or at least overly exaggerated, physical comedy, he catches the audience up with strong voice inflection to make his storytelling work. (Not everyone can be Dave Chappelle, people).
The true currency of stand-up is premises, and he's got one, so I'm just glad he finished repeating it; there certainly is too much milk, Jack.
Michelle Buteau - Immediately, with her featured bit, she said something so powerfully relatable that I wished I was a member of her family just to hear the kinds of things she says off camera.
She delivered every inch of the material with the confidence not of someone who wrote it, but someone who lived it, and that is, at its core, the soul of comedy. I believe every word she says, because she dispels all disbelief in her delivery, smart premises, and well-machined tools.
I can tell you on behalf of all government workers out there, she is prime real estate.
Bert Kreischer - Self deprecation comes easier to some, but not more easily than it comes to Bert. He uses what works, and that has been his career to this day. And it still works.
Lately, leaning on family material while still trying to remain edgy does seem forced. Not because it doesn't work; he still applies the culmination of decades in show business, road time, and professional relationships that would make anyone blink, though it can make us wonder if he's not stepping out of his lane. In the sense that he is technically a father, it's still a hard sell to imagine him being good for his children, which is distracting from the comedy he has been fostering lately.
As an audience, we don't want to feel bad for his children, but we do. He is an amazing amalgamation of comic gold, but shining his children in the spotlight may have been a mistake.
All of us can be guilty of what the Internet calls "concern trolling", but I don't think I'm rising to that level just yet. I'm talking about what is likely a real-life story that he's leveraging for material - pretty standard. But, Bert seems unashamed to show us the parts of him that makes him regret being a father. While honesty gets you the world in comedy, it can also get you cancelled as we well know. And while Bert will not get cancelled for having remorse, he won't be doing himself any favors until he shows us growth. No one wants to see a man go to his grave being a bad father, no matter how successful or funny he can be.
One of his gifts is that he does allow an audience to care about him, and about his well being, but that also opens the door to a vulnerability in his act over time.
He has cultivated the man-child image for long enough for his audience to understand an evolution ought to take place. We've had Dane Cook, Bert; we don't need a "better Dane Cook", we need a better Bert.
But, we all know that's not going to happen, so I will say this as a note, sometimes Bert writes above his target audience's head, and kudos to the editors for letting them land flat live to give the rest of us a little something extra to chuckle about.
Jo Koy - [Glenn Herbert] may be the most human comedian in lived memory. There are competitors for top position, for sure, but if I'm being completely honest, the more commercialized names that come to mind just don't have the full measure of the human condition in the same ways Jo does; (I'm looking at you Mike B. and Neal B.)
I would encourage anyone who doesn't believe me to catch him on podcasts, interviews, hell, even a Sam Adams commercial if you don't believe me. We are all better to know he is among us (no sus; safe).
I do need to say his comedy is not for me, so any notes I'd give would be [sus]. (Sorry, no more Among Us references). Great timing, great storytelling, clearly knows his audience. Don't skip these minutes, if only to see someone more human than you.
Truly great immigrant story that anyone can appreciate.
Donnell Rawlings Racial comedy done right. Undeniably a master at swinging for the fences with outrageous premises and doubling down. In the running as one of the best hustlers in the mix of unabashed and potent comedians who can break an audience with raw comedy. The most rigid of casual comedy fans can be captivated by these two minutes and taken for a ride against their will, even with a vicious redirection, you're strapped in for the experience.
The only thing I'm left wanting is more Donnelle and fewer tags. He tags premises until there's nothing left, and sometimes that's the right thing to do to a bit, especially when it's fresh, but if I could wish out loud, I would say I wish Donnelle would give us more.
While punching up at white people may seem like low hanging fruit, Donnelle does it in a way that only Donnelle can do, and he's not afraid to get us on board by stepping on [brown/black] toes to get there.
Jim Jefferies - If there's one thing Jim Jefferies has done with his entire life, it's that he has made us believe he is a man. Behind the clever writing, behind the outstanding life stories and perspectives on relatable experience, behind colorful language and attitudes, he did the Daniel Tosh career move of "pick a gender to entertain". And he did it well.
What strikes me is how effortlessly he charms us back into that otherwise banal lane. The way Tom Segura can wink and nod at us to punch up a joke, Jim can use his voice to let us know that he knows that he's being a piece of shit merely with inflection alone. Yet, he does this while hinting he's a self-aware piece of shit who is hilarious, and we can't ask for anything more than that.
What he sneaks into this short bit is that he has figured out how to be a piece of shit and bring women along for the fun, and this is a decent showcasing of that, even though he has done this very thing just as well and better in recent years.
I don't know anyone I've met who hasn't laughed at Jim Jefferies' material at least once, and all he does here is tell us that women take too long and he thinks he's good looking better than anyone else in the business.
Nikki Glaser - I don't know anyone like Nikki in real life, but where she might not occupy space in our personal lives, she captures our imagination at how a glamorous over-the-top single woman thinks and behaves, and the charm that comes with that is difficult to describe.
It could be the years of work she has put in as a comic, the years of discipline in keeping a Hollywood figure, the passion with which she delivers everything she takes on stage, but whatever the cause, the effect is clear: everyone's eyes open a bit wider and their eyebrows go up when she works.
One of the regular compliments she gets is her timing. She works when she's up there. The audience goes at her pace, and she makes them keep up. That's true professionalism. She gives an audience what they came for, but then she taps their own potential for entertainment beyond what they thought they were going to get.
Many female comics who don't do well often complain about male comics getting laughs about sex, crude humor, or just "wet" comedy in general, but those comics either haven't seen Nikki or wish she wasn't raising the bar for them. She does what she does so well that I would skip to her showcased bit here just to prove to someone she's legit, and all it includes is blowjobs, loneliness, and social media.
George Lopez - This legend delivers comedy like his life depends on it. No wasted movement, no "fat" on his act (just watch the bit). His ability to capture everyone through each layer of his bits is what will guarantee him a legacy among the greatest comedians to entertain us.
He gives us a window into older generations suitable for all ages. What parents today would blanch at was commonplace, and his reminders that tough parenting was how you got things done back in his day make even the youngest of us wistful in thought about what life might have been like beyond his short stories.
Sam Jay - Very, very strong premise showing a lot of potential for greatness and a long career. The freshness of privatized space tech with her perspective and attitude is a welcome change to the oddness and real confusion 2020 brought into the world. However, when she pointed out that white men still don't know what racism is, I was on board, but how she decided to do it almost certainly her audience. As an older millennial she should know better, but with her career going the way it is, she will do better and I look forward to what she does in 2021.
And if you need some qualification for that, I can break it down. She swung at white men, hard -- all white men. But, she used a white man from Africa. A man more African, geographically, than her. She basically used an atypical African-American man to say white people suck, and then she used that solid premise to sell an average self-deprecating joke: I don't dream of big things because I'm a victim. Woke comedy can be done better and is done better, but using white people is a crutch unless you apply a modicum of nuance. Something she will hopefully learn if she wants to become one of the greats. (Yes; that's an absolute dig against Chelsea Peretti, and I hope she reads this small poke in her eye)
Marc Maron - Marc Maron is to comedy what I would be to music if I started playing an instrument that I just thought sounded good. Would it be music? Yes. Is this comedy? Technically. Did anyone need to pay money to see it? crickets
A bit about turmeric with a Jewish skepticism may be someone's cup of tea, but even that anglo-saxon qualification relates to more people than this bit.
Kevin Hart - I honestly don't know what happen to Kevin. He is raw talent. He has an amazing body of work in such a short amount of time that his name in comedy is synonymous with wild success. If I was brought on as some third-party consultant, I wouldn't have put my foot down, but I would have asked the meaningful question, "are you sure you want to release this special?" -- Like, this year? -- "No, I mean, ever."
He probably has pressure to come up with family-friendly material, but stand-up is not for kids, as far as I'm concerned. Rent a clown. But, maybe that's his new face? I just don't know.
Translating multi-million dollar fame and fortune to store greeters is just such a disappointing stretch that it's truly hard to know who is watching this. There's not even a way that I could describe how it could work. While I don't like to wonder or even care, I had the fleeting thought that laughs may have been edited, or that the audience was staged. I just don't see it being real. I can ignore the NFL editing live crowd noises into their COVID/2020 season highlights and still enjoy football. I could not enjoy this.
Full disclosure, I tried to watch this special when it came out, and bailed after the first couple of bits. This selection just tells me I made a good decision.
Michael McIntyre - Gen X British humor. Moving on.
Fortune Feimster - One of the least celebrated, but most entertaining comedians, today. Her efforts in the name of comedy have gone unsung for too long. And while her special doesn't necessarily communicate that fact, I can tell you if you find any connection with her, remotely, you'll love her wherever else you'd find her.
Eric André - Definitely a little nervous giving this review, because there's so much hit or miss with Eric's work that no matter what I say I would certainly lead at least someone down a path of disappointment either about my critique when they find a love for his comedy, or his failed bits based on my praise of his style.
I think I'll just refuse to do a direct review of his minutes and place two wordings of caution to the wise.

• 1) You might forget that you're even watching a comedy routine if you watch this special.
  
• 2) If you look into anything else Eric André-related, you might laugh so hard and so unexpectedly that you will waste an hour chasing that high.
  

Jim Norton - It's good that I'm squeamish about roasting sacred cows, because these minutes do showcase the culmination of comedy chops, intelligence (perhaps sometimes misplaced), and relatable material Jim has made available to the common man his entire life offer us a distilled version of comedy that we all need: People use language on purpose. And without getting too political, I just got political. Deal with it.
He takes serial killers, an easy target, and raises the bar. Just good stuff.
Felipe Esparza - This type of act is one of my favorites. The deceptive cultural genre that invites and celebrates others may never get old. The way it is set up is especially good, because it introduces an unusual premise of white children being raised by immigrants, but tagging the story the entire time with punch-ups to white stereotypes. It's not as awe-inspiring as (again) Dave Chappelle's parallel to the crack epidemic to the heroin epidemic, but the fact that it made me think of such a thing puts it on the same level of comedic enterprise in my mind.
You can skip the 47 minute mark to 50, unless you like Demetri Martin, and if you like Demetri, just go ahead and watch him. Trust me. Even the cap on the premise could have been done objectively better. In my years alive, and my years of watching comedy, I just don't know what audience this is for.
Patton Oswalt - There's not a monster in the world brave enough to say a bad word about Patton, so I'll do my best to be the first. Despite all his fantastic creativity, word choice, and lazy physical humor, it should be said that his life must truly be boring. Netflix featured something worse than the comedian's airplane story, and that is someone so rich and famous from previous work that he puts his "funny" into walking. He can make us believe it's funny, because of how thoroughly he thought of it, how creatively he tagged it with clever phrases or socially collective laziness, and then throw gems out of nowhere that we didn't even know existed.
Really, if this is the first you've ever heard Patton, give every single thing he has done a listen and you won't regret it (stand-up wise).
Vir Das - Any bit done as well as this deserves mention. The stretch across international lines with something as distinct as national anthems while comparing the human experiences of them is top notch. Going heavy on American concepts is a bit strange, and it harkens a bit to the clean disdain that Indians have for Americans in business, because of the organized crime that happens in India to vulnerable Americans is measured in billions, but in immeasurable pain.
The direction the bit takes suggests that the true hatred of Americans as a people, rather than a government, an economic policy, or an idea is acceptable. I take issue with that, and would suggest a note to Vir to maybe use his talents to point out that beating the shit out of people during your own country's anthem might be problematic. But, I guess if it gets you the laugh, you're still a comedian, just not a good one.
Robert Kelly - I've heard more about Robert Kelly than I've seen of him. Comics love this guy. There's scarcely anyone who knows him in the business who doesn't first hate him, and then love him, or at least learn something from him. Robert does everything in this bit as well as the best comedians in the world. However, if he could do this in a 2-year rotation like his peers at a 60-minute length, he would not know what to do with his fame. He has the mind for it, but it's hard to tell if he has the will.
When comics get comfortable with where they are, their acts suffer. I'm not even talking about his bit anymore, I'm just being his dad.
Outstanding bit. Wish he would try.
Urzila Carlson - There is something of a bonus for foreign comics that Americans give entertainers. Whether it's Brits playing villains in movies, Aussies being... Aussies, Spanish being drug lords, Africans being warriors, Arabs being... Arabs, Asians being martial artists, Indians having hats, Russians wanting to kill people, or Europeans in general pretending the US doesn't matter, they all have a special place in our hearts as audiences.
Few do it better than Urzila. She reminds me of when America immediately fell charmed by whoever does the Daily Show now -- oh, right! I had to say the name of the show before I could even remember Trevor Noah was a comedian... And he has writers! He's not a bad comedian, this isn't about him, but holy shit that was a drop-off, wasn't it? From Jon Stewart?! I mean, come on.
Urzila has found her calling in comedy, she really has. She found something truly unique to her and made it accessibly funny to everyone, because unless you're legless, you have never felt the sheer panic of falling in slip-zone flops, and if you're legless, you've seen someone fall in those death traps. Comedy gold. I hope to see her entertaining as long as she likes, as far as I'm concerned.
Tom Papa - Tom is the kind of guy everyone likes to know, is glad they met, enjoyed performing, but is confused by what he does outside his gigs as a comedian. Even when I've heard him on public radio doing segments, I think to myself, "is this... normal?" I am revealing a bias here that I probably haven't pinned down exactly what I think of his comedy. A good chunk, I'd say at least a plurality, if not a majority, is really good.
I don't know what the equivalent of FUBU is, maybe "for dads, by dads" is just not that catchy. Truly well-rounded comedian who deserves a listen, even if you need to know that even the dad humor that makes money isn't for you.
Kanan Gill - I know I've mention Chappelle a number of times already, but I'm getting Dave vibes when I watch this bit. He is saying smart and interesting things that are not objectively funny, but he's working through them for us in an entertaining way. And I've had this thought before, about how philosophers understood that comics and tragic playwrights (and please don't ask me why playwrights is how you spell it) were basically beneath them intellectually, but in today's society philosophers are not included in anything, not even picked last in dodge ball. Comics have started to invade the philosopher's space in our lifetime, and we let them, because we need them.
I may be giving Kanan way too much credit here, but he's trying and succeeding in quite a bit, while remaining entertaining.
Ms. Pat - Anyone hearing from Ms. Pat for the first time should know you're missing out. From her true-grit American tale of just how hard poverty can be for anyone, not just a black woman in America, she has persevered in ways that should put everyone in awe. I would never suggest that her ability to do comedy was a result of her trauma, but I would die on a hill for the thought that her gift of comedy was preserved throughout it and she summoned the courage to share it with us, today. She is a treasure affixed in time and place that makes the new year look a little brighter, knowing that she and people like her exist and can make the world a better place for everyone around them.
The bonus of her being who she is, is that she has amazing stories. Unbelievable stories! And I don't want to hear for a minute that they're embellished or untrue. Her life is too crazy to lie about! I would believe anything this woman says! Truly, check her out.
And holy hell, the darkness in this comedy is made light only through her eyes; her poise, attitude, and craft of her own story is something to behold.
Rob Schneider - It's hard to think about Rob outside of the South Park dump taken on him during my generation, but we can work with this.
It borders boomer humor with the slap of wet comedy. Yes, getting old sucks, yes food choices are delicate as you age. I do like the misdirections he easily sells due to his decades as a successful actor. Could use a writing team if he wants to keep doing stand up, though.
Adrienne Iapalucci - Actual comedian. Really. There is little I can say that can detract from what she has accomplished from what she is willing to say, how she said it in terms of delivery and poise. I could listen to bits like this all day, because they center themselves in facts - maybe not truths - but facts. Undeniable facts are a comedian's bread and butter, and she has latched onto the concept in this bit like she was teaching a master class.
She worked her bit so well that she seamlessly transitions from praising R. Kelly to Dumping on him without interrupting the flow, which is harder to do than shocking them for many comedians who rely on showmanship, while she resides in the Segura-style deadpan, she maintains her own style completely distinct, but well-written appeal of someone who knows everything and the audience knows it, but she does something Tom does all the time, she inserts herself into the bit masterfully, but twists it up in a dark and self-deprecating way that forces an audience who may have at any point been on the fence to be on her side with a slight personal anecdote.
Kenny Sebastian - Prop-musical comedy shrugs if that's your thing.
Middleditch & Schwartz - They do a good job. I didn't like everything about their special, but what they captured there shows the magic of improvisation comedy, and I hope people who are new to it are able to enjoy it more after seeing what it can do.
Happy New Year, ya'll. Don't believe everything you read, or see, or listen to, definitely don't listen to me. I probably won't edit this for errors, so I hope that doesn't matter. Bye.

It is possible that the cricketers to be involved in the series cannot predict the course of it themselves.
Yet let us make a decent attempt at predicting the course of India's Test team in the tour of Australia.

The Playing XI for the first Test match (Location - Adelaide)

1. Mayank Agarwal
2. Rohit Sharma
3. Cheteshwar Pujara
4. Virat Kohli (C)
5. Ajinkya Rahane
6. Hanuma Vihari
7. Rishabh Pant (WK)
8. Ravichandran Ashwin
9. Ishant Sharma
10. Mohammed Shami
11. Jasprit Bumrah

Player Roles In The Team -

Considering this is the only Test Virat Kohli is playing, He would approach this aggressively. Which would influence the team selection. Mayank Agarwal is the incumbent and a player of Rohit Sharma's stature is bound to play this match taking into account all the happenings of his injury and selection chapter. This is going to be a significant tour in Mayank's career. He is in a budding stage and the Aussie bowlers are to probe for chinks in his armor. He will be exploited at short notice if found wanting. The Aussie bowlers are inclined to strain him the most. Day/Night Tests play out differently than normal Tests, Rohit can go for his shots early here and bank on Pujara afterwards to stem the tide as he is going to get bogged down later in the day. It could lead to a Prithvi Shaw like situation which is a double edged sword with one side serrated. The Aussie bowlers are going to plunge into him. Rohit is surely going to dance on hot coals this test, The favorable feature is he better composed than Prithvi Shaw. Mayank Agarwals coordination with Rohit is paramount here, It remains to be seen if takes the strike more in lieu of Rohit. Pujara is an automatic selection due to his previous performance on Australian soil. Pujara is cocooning into his meditative state and nobody is going to deny him here, He has earnt that privilege in this part of the world. Virat Kohli is the captain and his place goes without saying. He is going all out in this Test, The effects of which would be more pronounced in his captaincy than batting. He would be looking for partnerships while batting to bundle and gain more control of the proceedings. Ajinkya Rahane gets a spot on merit of his experience. Rahane desperately needs runs in this Test to gather himself as he is going to play a vital role in the remaining Tests. He needs to build assurance. Rahane takes on the rejuvenated Aussie bowlers in most situations and is certain to have a field day in the slips. Hanuma Vihari deserves a spot to help him solidify his place in the team. Viharis place in the team is most suspect as Kohli has the propensity to search for a wildcard, chop and change teams for crucial matches. Kohli might feel the need for an odd concoction of stability and X factor for this spot leading to a debut for Shubman Gill. Wicket Keeper is a place of contention, Rishabh Pant has not kept to a pink ball before. India will be looking for early wickets of the Australian top order. Owing to the marginally better lateral movement of the pink ball in comparison to the red one, Rishabh Pant might have a tough time keeping to the buoyant Indian pacers, Particularly during the twilight period. Wriddhiman Saha might be preferred to offer a safe pouch for the bowlers, Yet Virat might trust in Rishabh the batsmen to negate the bowling advantages of a pink ball opening Test in Adelaide. India needs runs in this Test and Rishabh is a utility pick. Ashwin's astute nature and him being a better spinner helps his case here. The pink ball will turn owing to its prominent seam, Jadeja is in with a shout here, Him being a left arm spinner and he can scramble the ball. But India plays to doggedly win this Test, Virat probably goes with 3 attacking bowlers. Ashwin is an attacking bowler and he occupies this spot. Ishant is the most important cog in this team for this match. He carries the workload of this bowling, He is the indubitable engine of the team. Shami might play the enforcer role here. With a miniscule chance of reverse swing, Shami could be encouraged to strike. He probably bowls the most bouncers in this match. It might be a deliberate ploy to counter the Australian middle order. With constant consultation of the team leaders Bumrah incisively hunts in a pair with other bowlers throughout the match, Going berserk in a few short spells if needed.

Player Performances Prediction -

Speculating player performances is vague and futile. Regardless of it, I encourage the readers of this post to write their speculations of the performance in the comments.

Note -

If this post gathers enough attention. I will endeavor to write a better continuation of this article by making it a series for the rest of the Tests and perhaps the LOI's.
PS - I was an insomniac and in a damn fuzzy mood when I typed this. Kindly point out any mistakes if there are any. Suggestions and banter is always welcome.

Following on from watching the 2011 World Cup a few days back, spotted ‘How the 2003 World Cup was won’ on the TV guide so let’s see how England did in this one...I’m sure it’ll just a quiet, calm affair with no controversy whatsoe...what’s that?...What about Zimbabwe?
Anyway unlike last time I’m typing a long as I watch this one so expect me to get entirely sidetracked on more than one occasion...
Right, let’s start by acknowledging England’s group, Group A, if you thought a champions league group with Bayern, Arsenal and Napoli was considered a group of death then you’ve never seen the 2003 World Cup. Group A consisted of Australia, England, India, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Holland and Namibia...top 3 teams go through to the super 6’s...not looking great is it England...
I was 12 when this World Cup was on, I should remember more of it but oh well...let’s go..
Game 1 - Zimbabwe or as it turned out a press conference with Nasser Hussain going off on the ICC...
I’m going to rant now...Looking back on this now, as a more well read and knowledgeable adult, Nasser and his team should never have been in the position they were put in, the problems between the UK and Zimbabwe were there long before this World Cup, the ICC has plenty of opportunity to change the groupings and avoid this situation, instead they did nothing and dragged Nasser Hussain into a political shit show, forcing him and his team to make a decision to forfeit the match for their own safety. Disgusting really.
Game 2: Holland - First sighting of a young Jimmy Anderson...I say young, he could be anywhere between 17 and 35 such is the aging process in Burnley...Holland reduced to 46-5, get themselves to 142-9 thanks to 50 from Tim De Leede...ahh England and failing to finish off the tail. Simple enough chase for England lead by 50s from Mr Vanilla Nick Knight and Mr Hot Take Michael Vaughan. Other highlights include Marcus Trescothick getting bowled trying to plant one into the stratosphere and Knight plonking a rank long hop straight to mid wicket..
Off topic: Forgot Jonty Rhodes retired during this..
Game 3 - Namibia
Made this one more difficult than it should’ve been, won by 60 runs, one Namibian lad took a 5-fer another plundered 70-odd, wins a win though..gonna be honest, the show didn’t spend long on this game so I have no more details to give.
Off topic: Should’ve covered Canada for this one, beat Bangladesh, bowled out for 36 by Sri Lanka, Jon Davison smashing the faster World Cup century against West Indies...proper rollercoaster...
Game 4 - Pakistan.
England bat first, 7-1 after 4, 39-1 after 8...flying along..overall another 50 from Vaughan and 50 from Collingwood help England to 246 before the ageless enigma Jimmy Anderson stamps his grumpy authority on international cricket and rips the heart out of the Pakistan batting line up with a magnificent spell and barely cracking a smile...Pakistan succumb to 134 all out. Very solid performance really...just need to beat India or Australia now to go through...what could possibly go wrong?
Off topic: another reminder, that Jon Davison innings was ridiculous. Kenya made the semis of this one too didn’t they? Explain to me again why Associates can’t be in the World Cup?
Game 5 - India.
The classic England response to a stonking performance against Pakistan, actually did quite well to keep India to 250-9, looked like 300+ on the cards at one point. England collapse to 107-6 before some stonking blows in a 50 for Freddie Flintoff got them to 168 all out...leaving them needing to beat Australia and hope other results go their way...
Off topic: Tendulkar was a bit good wasn’t he...
Game 6 - Australia -
We’ve got some build up for this one, for some reason Darren Gough’s in a Walkabout asking pissed up Aussies why they’re in England...because how fucking dare they, aye Goughie...now Sky reporter Tim Abrahams having a net against the Aussies, bold approach by Tim, preferring not to use his bat and just let everything hit him on the body before being patted on the head and called gutsy by Gilchrist..Anyway on to the game..
England start off looking alright before ending on 204-8, managing only 34 in the last 10 whilst Andy Bichel took 7-18. Start off looking alright with the ball too, reducing the Aussies to 48-4 then 135-8...did we win this game? Hahahaha No. In classic England fashion they get twatted by Michael Bevan.
And that’s that. England out but with a moral victory being the only side to refuse to travel to Zimbabwe(who went through by virtue of those 4 forfeited points...what could’ve been..) I guess and in the knowledge they only actually shit the bed twice...in the two most must win games they played..Nas resigns sighting ‘there must be someone out there who can average more than 30 with a strike rate better than 66...’
So it turns out, writing along whilst watching ends up getting very long...ahh well, this was fun, 2007 world cups on in a couple of days, might do that one too...now excuse me whilst I go and reevalute my life realising I’ve just spent 3 hours on a Thursday morning watching a World Cup from 17 years ago...

Introduction

Brian Lara's 400*. Don Bradman averaging 99.94. Sachin Tendulkar scoring 15,921 Test runs. Chris Martin scoring 12*. The batsmen who achieved these Herculean feats have all gone down in cricket history. However, these are not the only batting performances which exist. There are multiple cases in which a batsman has achieved something unusual, or even at times truly unique, yet they do not get recognition. This post is dedicated to all those batsmen who have managed to achieve what few others have achieved, regardless of whether those achievements are good or bad.
​

Howzat?

There are ten methods of dismissal (formerly eleven) in cricket, but of these, only five can be considered 'normal': Bowled, caught, LBW, stumped and run out. One could also make a case for hit wicket, and it's common enough that I don't think it counts as being truly unusual. What about the other five, then? Has any batsman in international cricket been dismissed through any of those methods? Thankfully, Wikipedia has a list which I highly advise you to check out, so I'll just be summarising in this section.
First, there's obstructing the field. Only one batsman has ever been dismissed obstructing the field in Tests, and that batsman is Len Hutton against South Africa in 1951. After striking the ball, he noticed that it was about to land onto his stumps and thus bowl him, so he used his bat to strike the ball a second time and protect his stumps. This is actually a legal manoeuvre for a batsman provided that it doesn't prevent a fielder from taking a catch; unfortunately for Hutton, there was a fielder nearby who was ready to take a catch, so he became the first (and so far only) batsman in Test history to be dismissed obstructing the field.
Interestingly enough, there have been seven instances in ODIs of batsmen being given out obstructing the field. In all of those cases, the batsman in question obstructed throws from fielders in order to avoid being run out, in contrast to Hutton who obstructed a catch in order to avoid being caught. In three of those cases, the batsman used his bat or his body to deflect the ball away from the stumps while out of his crease, and in three other cases, the batsman changed his direction of movement while running in order to block the ball. Ben Stokes was out obstructing the field in the most unusual way, however, when he pulled a Maradona and used his hand to prevent the ball from hitting the stumps in a 2015 ODI against Australia.
There have been two instances of a batsman being dismissed obstructing the field in T20Is. Jason Roy was given out in a 2017 T20I against South Africa for changing his direction of movement while running, and Maldivian cricketer Hassan Rasheed was given out obstructing the field in 2019 for...I don't know, actually. It's pretty hard to find articles on bilateral T20Is between the Maldives and Qatar. If there's anyone here who is an expert on Maldivian or Qatari cricket then I'd appreciate finding out more about this incident.
As for handling the ball, this has happened ten times in international cricket (seven times in Tests and three times in ODIs). In 2013, the Laws were changed so that only the striker could be given out handling the ball and even then only before he had finished playing his stroke (strikers handling the ball after the completion of his stroke, and non-strikers handling the ball at any time, would be given out obstructing the field). In 2017, this method of dismissal was removed entirely and instead came under obstructing the field.
I won't go through all the players, but I will pick out some particular highlights. South Africa's Russell Endean was the first batsman in international cricket to be dismissed handled the ball in 1957 when he used his free hand to knock the ball away from the stumps, but according to a later interview, he actually wanted to head the ball away at first; I don't know whether that's actually against the Laws, but given that they didn't wear helmets back then, I can't imagine that it would have ended well. Michael Vaughan was the last player to be dismissed in this manner in Tests back in 2001, and Zimbabwe's Chamu Chibhaba holds the distinction of being the last cricketer to be dismissed handled the ball in international cricket after he was given out for handling the ball in an ODI against Afghanistan in 2015.
This post is about unusual feats, however, and when it comes to being given out handled the ball, there is none more unusual than the story of Australia's Andrew Hilditch. In a Test match against Pakistan in 1979, following a wayward throw from a fielder, Hilditch (who was at the non-striker's end) decided to return the ball to the bowler. It's actually against the Laws for a batsman to return the ball to a fielder without that fielder's permission, and controversially, the bowler (Sarfraz Nawaz) decided to appeal, which led to Hilditch's dismissal. This would be the only instance in international cricket of a non-striker being given out handled the ball, so Hilditch takes the biscuit when it comes to this unusual method of dismissal.
Retirement is rather unusual in that depending on the situation, the batsman can be considered out or not out. Generally, retirement occurs due to injury, in which case the batsman is considered 'retired hurt' and is entitled to return to the crease upon the fall of a wicket or upon another batsman's retirement. This situation is not at all unusual. What is unusual, though, is a batsman retiring for reasons other than injury, and unless there is some other acceptable reason for their absence (which I'll talk about shortly), the fielding side has the right to prevent them from returning to the crease, in which case they are retired out.
This has only occurred three times in international cricket. In a Test between Bangladesh and Sri Lanka in 2001, in which Sri Lanka demolished the then-new Test nation of Bangladesh, the Sri Lankan captain (Sanath Jayasuriya) retired Marvan Atapattu after he scored his double-century, and later in the same innings, retired Mahela Jayawardene after he smashed 150(115). Obviously, this move was criticised by some for breaching the spirit of the game, and these are the only two instances of batsmen being retired out in Test cricket. The other such instance in international cricket is when Bhutan's Sonam Tobgay was retired out in a 2019 T20I against the Maldives (something about the Maldives and unusual dismissals for some reason), but I can't find any further details of the incident.
Now, this post is generally meant to be a light-hearted celebration of unusual batting achievements, but this next story is rather more sombre. In a 1983 Test between the West Indies and India, Gordon Greenidge was on 154* in the West Indies' first innings when he received news that his daughter was dying; he retired in order to be able to visit her, and she sadly passed away two days later. Although Greenidge had not been injured, he was given as 'retired not out' due to the tragic circumstances. To this day, this is the only instance in international cricket of a batsman being given retired not out.
Hit the ball twice and timed out are perhaps the most unusual dismissals of all in the sense that no batsman has ever been given out for those reasons in international cricket (not yet, anyway; there's a first time for everything). There was one instance, however, in which a batsman could have been timed out in Test cricket, but ultimately wasn't.
The Law states that a batsman must be at the crease within three minutes, else they can be timed out. In a 2007 Test between India and South Africa, Sachin Tendulkar was due to come in at #4. However, he had temporarily been off the field during South Africa's innings, and he still had unserved penalty time when two Indian wickets quickly fell, meaning that he couldn't bat at #4. As a result, India, who were confused by the whole ordeal, didn't send out a batsman for six minutes until Sourav Ganguly finally arrived at #4. Both the umpires and South Africa's captain, Graeme Smith, agreed that an appeal would be against the spirit of the game, but had Smith appealed, this would have been the only instance in international cricket of a batsman being timed out.
​

The Best Since Bradman

It's common knowledge among cricket fans that Don Bradman holds the record for the highest Test batting average, at 99.94. However, this isn't strictly speaking true. It is correct to say that Bradman has the highest average among batsmen who have played a minimum of twenty innings, but among all batsmen, Bradman only comes in at a measly third (what a fraud). Who are ahead of him, then?
Firstly, let us dispel with the notion that a batsman who is never dismissed has an infinite average. That is not true. A batsman who is never dismissed has an undefined average, since it is impossible to have a batting average without any dismissals. Pakistani off-spinner Afaq Hussain holds the record for the most Test runs scored without being dismissed, having scored 65 runs in four innings.
Looking at batsmen who have been dismissed, however, we come across West Indian wicketkeeper Andy Ganteaume in second place. The poor lad struggled to get into the Test team because of his slow scoring rate in tour matches, but an injury to Jeff Stollmeyer forced the selectors to play him against England. In his only Test innings in 1948, Ganteaume hit 112 but was criticised (once again) for scoring too slowly and was subsequently dropped; he would never play another Test match. Still, he can lay legitimate claim to having a higher Test batting average than Bradman, which only one other batsman has achieved.
Who's the best since Bradman, then? With a minimum cut-off of twenty innings, we have Adam Voges, Steve Smith and Marnus Labuschagne, all Australian, two of them still active international cricketers. As is tradition at this point, the batsman with the highest Test batting average of all time is an active Australian cricketer, Kurtis Patterson to be precise. He forced himself into the team after scoring twin centuries in a tour match and although he only scored 30 in his first innings, he scored 114* in his second to end up with an average of 144.
Australian fans go crazy over Smith and Labuschagne, declaring them to be the best since Bradman. Little do they realise that they have in their ranks a batsman who is not only statistically better than Bradman but who is also statistically better than the GOAT Test batsman Andy Ganteaume.
How about ODIs, though? Who has the highest ODI batting average of all time? I'll give you a hint: He's a Dutch player. No, it's not Ryan ten Doeschate; it is, in fact, Max O'Dowd. He scored 86* in his first innings followed by a score of 59 in his second innings to end up with an average of 145. South African Irish cricketer Curtis Campher comes in at second with an average of 127.
Who has scored the most runs in ODIs without being dismissed, though? Well, let me ask you a different question: Who is England's greatest ever ODI player? If you said Jos Buttler then you'd be wrong. By law, anything that Buttler can do, Foakes can do better, and Ben Foakes does in fact hold the record for the most runs in ODIs without being dismissed, having scored 61* in his only ODI innings. Buttler would never.
In T20Is, the greatest ever batsman is someone who you probably haven't even heard of. Chris Gayle calls himself 'Universe Boss', but the true Universe Boss is surely the guy who averages 126 in T20Is. Enter Portugal's Najjam Shahzad, who scored 27* in his first innings, 46 in his second and 53* in his third. Not only does he have the highest T20I average of all time but he's also improving with every innings, so it won't be long until Portugal becomes a powerhouse in T20I cricket thanks to megadaddy hundreds from Universe Boss Najjam Shahzad.
If Shahzad is the Universe Boss, however, then Saudi Arabia's Mohammad Adnan is the Multiverse Boss. He holds the record for the most runs in T20Is without being dismissed, scoring 14*, 38* and 8* in his three innings. Not only that, but he has a career strike rate of 193.54, so he doesn't waste time. Give this man an IPL contract already.
​

Duck, Duck, Goose

Ducks and golden ducks are not unusual in and of themselves. That doesn't mean that scoring a duck or golden duck can't still be unusual feats, however; it all depends on how those ducks or golden ducks come about.
You might be aware that New Zealand's Geoff Allott holds the record for the most balls faced for a duck in Tests, having faced 77 balls against South Africa in 1999 (he also holds the record for the longest duck, having batted for a whopping 101 minutes). What about the other formats, though? The late West Indian batsman Runako Morton holds the record for most balls faced for a duck in ODIs, having scored 0(31) against Australia in 2006 (unsurprisingly, the West Indies lost that match). Morton took 56 minutes for his duck, which is also an ODI record.
T20Is are where it gets juicy, however. Canada's Sandeep Jyoti holds the record for most balls faced for a duck in T20Is, scoring 0(12) against Zimbabwe in 2008 (it was a close match, though, as Canada only lost by 109 runs). In terms of minutes batted, however, Zimbabwe's Brendan Taylor holds that record, having batted for 19 minutes in a T20I against South Africa in 2010 for a five-ball duck; Jyoti, by comparison, batted for 15 minutes.
The record for most balls faced for a golden duck is...one. By definition, golden ducks involve the batsman facing exactly one ball. However, who took the longest time for their golden duck?
In Tests, that accolade belongs to Bangladesh's Nazmul Hossain, who spent 14 minutes at the crease against India in a 2004 match before being run out for a golden duck. England fans were probably waiting in anticipation for a superb knock from the #3 batsman, Martyn Moxon, when they were 47-1 against Australia in a 1985 ODI, but after 19 minutes of tension, Moxon was dismissed LBW off his first ball. In a 2015 T20I between England and Pakistan, Pakistani opener Rafatullah Mohmand somehow conspired to spend 17 minutes at the crease before being dismissed LBW in the third over for a golden duck; amazingly, he was only two minutes away from equalling the record for the longest duck in T20Is!
What if a batsman just doesn't feel like scoring runs, though, and ends on 0*? Obviously, batsmen can end on something like 0*(0) or 0*(1) or 0*(5), and that wouldn't be too unusual. The truly remarkable feats are when a batsman plays a marathon innings and yet still finishes on 0*. Some of these players put Geoffrey Boycott to shame.
Firstly, let's consider Tests. In 1968, England scored 351/7d in the first innings and bowled Australia out for 78, forcing them to follow on. Cricinfo states that Paul Sheahan 'never completely mastered the art of crease occupation', which is a bizarre claim to make about a player who faced 44 balls in Australia's second innings without scoring a run, thus not only securing the draw but also setting a record which remains unbroken to this day. His marathon innings took 52 minutes, which is a joint record along with New Zealand bowler Danny Morrison's 0*(30) against South Africa in 1995.
Fun fact: Had Jack Leach not scored that single at Headingley while still remaining not out, he would have broken this record having batted for 60 minutes, yet assuming that he completed his final over, he would have only faced 20 balls (fewer than half the balls Paul Sheahan faced). I think this demonstrates just how effective Stokes was at farming the strike.
Moving on to ODIs, Zimbabwean #11 batsman Chris Mpofu (who averages 2.85 with the bat) holds the record here, having scored 0*(20) in a tenth-wicket partnership of 12(38) against Bangladesh in 2006. His partner was the #10 batsman (and Zimbabwe's captain) Prosper Utseya, who certainly didn't prosper with his 21(42), thus stranding Mpofu 80 balls short of his dentury. Who holds the record for the longest 0*, though?
Picture the scene. It's March 2019 and Sri Lanka is struggling in an ODI against South Africa. It's the first innings and Lasith Malinga has been run out for a duck, leaving Sri Lanka on 131/9 after just 33.4 overs. Everyone knows about Kusal Perera's incredible 153* earlier that year, but what happened next, while not nearly as impressive, was nonetheless incredible. #9 batsman Isuru Udana and #11 batsman Kasun Rajitha put on a tenth-wicket stand of 58 runs from just 34 balls. Udana ends on 78(57). Rajitha ends on 0*(9), having batted for exactly half an hour. South Africa still won comfortably, but Rajitha's immense innings saw him enter the history books as having scored the longest 0* in ODI history. Udana's innings was alright as well.
Finally, in T20Is, the record for the most balls faced for a 0* is held by Bermuda's Rodney Trott, who scored 0*(7) against the Netherlands in 2019. Cricinfo doesn't know how long it took, however. For that, we have to look towards India's Yuzvendra Chahal, who took 15 minutes for his 0*(4) against Australia in 2019. Solid contribution from him.
All these feats are just in one innings, though. Some batsmen go above and beyond that and spend their entire career not scoring runs (either that or they don't know what a batsman's main job is). Two Sri Lankan players (Ishara Amerasinghe and Dinuka Hettiarachchi) hold the joint record for most balls faced in Tests without scoring a single run, both having faced 25 balls. In fact, the entire top four is made up of Sri Lankans; clearly, a significant proportion of Sri Lankan cricketers view run-scoring as optional. Hettiarachchi (who Cricinfo reckons is an all-rounder despite an FC batting average of 9.55) beats out everyone when it comes to minutes batted, though, having batted for 39 minutes in Tests without scoring a single run.
Bangladesh's Harunur Rashid holds the record for most balls faced in ODIs without scoring a run, having faced 17 in total. However, we have to look to our old friend Rajitha to find the player who's batted the most minutes in ODIs without scoring a run; he has batted at least 32 minutes, almost all of which comes from his partnership with Udana. Portugal's Sukhwinder Singh has faced nine balls in T20Is without scoring a run, which is the record, but Shaheen Shah Afridi and Mathew Sinclair both hold the joint-record for having batted seven minutes in T20Is without scoring a run.

Diamond Ducks Are Forever

Ducks and golden ducks aren't too unusual for the most part, but diamond ducks (in which a batsman is dismissed without facing a single ball) are. Think of what needs to happen for a diamond duck to occur. The player can't be a striker for obvious reasons, so bowled, caught, LBW, stumped, hit wicket and hit the ball twice (all of which can only apply to the striker) are out of play. Timed out is out of play as soon as a batsman enters the crease. This leaves just three possible dismissals for a diamond duck: Run out, obstructing the field and retired out. The latter two almost never happen, so diamond ducks almost always occur due to run-outs.
There have been 153 diamond ducks in ODIs and 53 diamond ducks in T20Is, so in those formats, diamond ducks aren't that unusual. This makes sense, of course, as run-outs are more likely to occur in those formats. Tests are where diamond ducks count as an unusual batting feat, as there have been in the history of Tests only 29 diamond ducks that we know of. Chris Martin holds the unfortunate distinction of being the only cricketer in the history of Tests to be dismissed for a diamond duck twice (one of which came in his final Test innings, which is a perfect summation of his batting career).
Most of these diamond ducks have of course come through run-outs, but there have been seven international diamond ducks (three in ODIs and four in T20Is) which have come through stumpings. On the surface, this shouldn't be possible; how can a batsman be stumped without facing a ball? The answer is simple: Leg-side stumpings. In white-ball cricket, any leg-side delivery tends to be given as a wide, and the odd thing about wides is that they do not count as a ball faced by the striker yet the striker can be dismissed stumped or hit wicket off of them. This would explain why this kind of diamond duck has occurred seven times in LOIs yet has never occurred in the history of Test cricket.
FWIW, there has yet to be an international diamond duck from a method of dismissal other than run out and stumped, but it is theoretically possible for a batsman who is dismissed hit wicket (off a wide), obstructing the field or retired out to achieve a diamond duck. Will any batsman be brave enough to make history and try to achieve what would be a unique feat by being dismissed for a diamond duck through one of these modes of dismissal? We'll have to wait and see.
​

Specialist Six-Hitters

So far, this post has been focusing largely on defensive stalwarts, but those are boring to watch. Everyone knows that real cricket is about walking up to the crease and hitting sixes from the get-go, so this section will be dedicated to those players who consider a strike rate under 600 to be too defensive. No score illustrates this mentality better than the rare 6*(1), so let's start with that.
In all the Tests throughout history, only once has a batsman finished on a score of 6*(1). The year is 1993 and Sri Lanka's Sanath Jayasuriya enters the crease with his team five wickets down but needing just four runs to beat England. Phil Tufnell is the bowler who is trying to take his wicket and help pull off a miracle for England, but Jayasuriya is having none of it and promptly smacks his first delivery for six. As far as Tests go, Jayasuriya's 6*(1) is a true case of batting scorigami (maybe I'll do a cricket scorigami post at some point).
As for ODIs and T20Is, a final score of 6*(1) is more common as you might imagine. In fact, it has occurred nine times in ODIs and thirteen times in T20Is. It appears to be the case that when a batsman is dismissed on the penultimate ball of the first innings, the batting team will send out a specialist six-hitter to get the job done. Credit goes to Afghan wicketkeeper Shafiqullah and England all-rounder Chris Jordan for being the only two players to achieve this unusual feat twice (Shafiqullah has achieved it twice in T20Is whereas Jordan has achieved it once in ODIs and once in T20Is).
A 6*(1) is probably my second-favourite score, but you know what my favourite score is? 6(2). I don't think any score illustrates the dual nature of batting quite like this one does. You can be dominating a bowler and smashing them for six one moment, then the very next moment, you can find yourself dismissed by the same bowler. It's poetic. It represents not only the duality of batsmen but the duality of man himself; you can be breezing through life one second then you could be rock-bottom the next. 6(2) is not just a score; it is a representation of life itself, cricket's ode to the erratic nature of mankind's existence.
Much like 6*(1), 6(2) has only occurred once in Test cricket, in 1958 to be precise. The West Indies were 401 runs behind Australia heading into the third innings and they required a miracle just to stay in the game. A 179-run partnership between Walcott and Sobers gave the West Indies hope, but they then proceeded to collapse from 244/3 to 283/8. In comes Frank King at #10 with his team needing over a hundred runs just to make Australia bat again. Not wanting to go down without a fight, he heaves the bowler for six off his first ball. Alas, his very next ball results in him being caught, but one cannot fault King for his effort in the face of certain defeat (apart from the fact that he had Everton Weekes at the other end, but we'll just ignore that).
This scoreline of 6(2) has occurred ten times in ODIs and eleven times in T20Is. No batsman in international cricket has ever achieved it twice. The first player to achieve it twice will thus have their names etched in the history books for their unique feat.
South Africa's Mangaliso Mosehle deserves special mention, though. He has achieved the ultimate cricket scorigami: His score of 6(1) against Sri Lanka in a 2016 T20I is the only such score in the entire history of international cricket. He came in at #6 at the end of South Africa's ninth over and hit his first international ball for six. He was then run out as the non-striker in the next over, leaving him on a score of 6(1). Not only did his team win the match, but Mosehle achieved what no other batsman has achieved before or since. Truly, his name must be counted among the likes of Lara, Tendulkar and Bradman for this one-of-a-kind feat.
In cases such as 6*(1) and 6(1), the batsman was left with a strike rate of 600. Can it go higher, though? Has any batsman done better than 600? For the first question, the answer is surprisingly yes. It is indeed theoretically possible for a batsman to finish an innings with a strike rate greater than 600. If he hits a ball for three and the fielding side then throws the ball to the boundary, the number of runs scored off of that delivery will be 3 + 4 overthrows = 7. This is how it would theoretically be possible for a batsman to conclude an innings with a strike rate greater than 600.
Does this mean that there is a batsman out there who has struck at a rate greater than 600? Unfortunately, no. Though it is doable, it has never happened in international cricket. The highest SR ever achieved in an international innings is 600; that includes Mosehle, all the players who have scored 6*(1), and Afghanistan's Dawlat Zadran, who against Oman in 2016 scored 12*(2) to win his team the T20I by three wickets with three balls remaining. He clearly did his job as specialist six-hitter very well indeed, for he is the only batsman in international cricket to have finished an innings with a strike rate of 600 having faced more than one ball.
Since no batsman has struck at greater than 600 in an innings, it stands to reason that no batsman has struck at greater than 600 over their career. Has anyone struck at exactly 600, though? Is there a batsman who hit their only ball in international cricket for six?
No-one's done it in Tests, that's for sure. The batsman with the highest confirmed career strike rate in Tests is Australia's Fred Freer, who hit 28*(21) in his only innings for a career SR of 133.33. However, Bill Howell (also Australian) may have had an SR of up to 205.88, though we don't have full ball-by-ball data for his innings.
In ODIs and T20Is, the records are undisputed. South African pace bowler Johann Louw holds the accolade in ODIs, having scored 23(7) in his only innings for a career strike rate of 328.57, and Bahrain's Qasim Zia hit a four off his only international delivery to take the record for the highest career strike rate in T20Is.
As you can see, not only has no batsmen ever finished with a career SR greater than 600, but none have even managed to finish with an SR of exactly 600. To strike at greater than 600 over the course of an innings would be unique in international cricket; to strike at exactly 600 over the course of a career would be truly special; to strike at greater than 600 over the course of a career, however, would be the holy grail of unusual batting feats. The player who manages to achieve that would surely go down in cricketing folklore for all eternity.
​

To Be Or Not To Be On Strike

All of the aforementioned batting feats require that the batsman has actually faced a ball. What if that's not the case, though? What if a batsman's dedication to weirdness is so great that they do not even bother to get themselves on strike? Or, perhaps more accurately, what if a batsman's dedication to weirdness is so great that they do not allow their partner to take the strike?
That is precisely what happened in 2012 when England faced Pakistan in the first Test of the tour. With Pakistan on 319/9 in their first innings, Adnan Akmal evidently didn't trust his partner Aizaz Cheema to face even one delivery, with the result that the two batsmen put on a 19-run partnership for the tenth wicket despite Cheema not facing a single ball. What makes this notable is that Cheema batted for 20 minutes without facing a delivery, which is a Test match record. Amusingly, Cheema ended his career with five innings batted, five not-outs, a high score of 1*, 23 balls faced and a strike rate of 4.34.
As for T20Is, I must admit that I am rather bemused. Afghanistan's Amir Hamza holds the record for the most minutes batted in a T20I innings without facing a ball, having batted for 10 minutes against the Netherlands in 2013. However, I'm confused as to how he managed to achieve this. Afghanistan's ninth wicket fell on the final ball of the nineteenth over, and so Hamza's partner faced the first ball of the final over. However, Hamza was also run out for a diamond duck on the first ball of the final over. This means that the gap between the end of the nineteenth over and the beginning of the final over was 10 minutes. How is that even possible in a T20I? Cricinfo isn't helping me at all here.
Now for the reason I wanted to make this post in the first place. This particular innings took place in 2017, during an ODI between Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand had set the Aussies a target of 287 and the chasing side found themselves facing certain defeat on 226/9, with only Marcus Stoinis and Josh Hazlewood left at the crease.
What happened next was nothing short of spectacular. Stoinis somehow managed to farm the strike with such effectiveness that immediately prior to the final ball of the 47th over, the two batsmen had put on a tenth-wicket partnership of 54 runs and needed just six more runs to win. The kicker? Hazlewood didn't face a single ball. Stoinis had faced every single delivery in the partnership. Australia's innings finally ended on the final ball of the 47th over when Hazlewood was run out for a diamond duck while attempting to take a single, but if Stoinis had pulled it off, it would surely have been one of the greatest ODI innings of all time.
All in all, Hazlewood batted for 26 minutes, which is by far the longest innings by a batsman without facing a single ball in the history of international cricket. When I first heard about this stat, I couldn't believe it; I found it so unusual and so unique that I decided to look for more weird and wonderful batting feats, and that's how this post came about. Hats off to specialist non-striker Josh Hazlewood, then, for inspiring me to do this.
You might think that any batsman who faces zero balls in an innings can only end up with a score of either 0 or 0*, and if you think that, you'd be right. Nonetheless, while searching through Cricinfo's database to find the weirdest batting feats out there, I came across this scorecard. Apparently, this is due to a scoring error as the scorer incorrectly neglected to count the no-ball as a ball faced. The fact that this is the only such instance of this happening in Cricinfo's database supports this theory.
Hazlewood's achievement was superb, but even he only managed it in one innings. How about over an entire career? Who holds the record for the most minutes batted over a career without facing a ball? Unfortunately, Cricinfo won't let me find that out for Tests, and the ODI and T20I data present nothing at all unusual (the record is 2 minutes for ODIs and 5 minutes for T20Is, in case you're wondering).
Matches played is somewhat more interesting. Once again, Cricinfo won't let me do this for Tests, but India's Jaydev Unadkat holds the record for the most ODIs played without facing a single ball, having played in seven ODIs. However, he's also never had to bat; if we restrict our search only to those who have batted at least one innings, Lance Gibbs and Pakistan's Mohammad Khalil come out on top, both having played three ODIs without facing a ball.
The West Indies' Krishmar Santokie holds the record for the most T20Is played without facing a single ball, having played in twelve of them (talk about specialist bowler!), although India's Mohammed Shami and Scotland's Hamza Tahir are closing in on that record, both having played in eleven T20Is without facing a single ball. Unlike Unadkat (and Shami and Tahir, for that matter), Santokie actually batted in one innings (against Ireland in 2014), though that would be his only international innings with the bat.
​

Extra, Extra!

I don't think Extras gets enough credit. The dude's been batting for 144 years and yet no-one praises his longevity. This final section will thus be dedicated to the man, the myth, the legend, Mr. Extras himself.
Despite his long and illustrious career, Extras has only top-scored in 19 completed Test innings. The lowest such score came in 1924; England scored 438 in the first innings while South Africa could only manage 30, with Extras scoring a swashbuckling 11 to lessen South Africa's humiliation. The skipper, Herbie Taylor, was the next-highest scorer with 7; a true captain's knock from him. Extras' highest score was a 76 for Pakistan against India in 2007 (he had also scored 38 and 41 in India's two innings, so it was a good match for him), but this was not the highest score in the innings.
In total, Extras has top-scored in 39 completed ODI innings. This includes a 2004 ODI between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka, in which Extras scored 7 of Zimbabwe's 35 runs (tied with Dion Ebrahim for Zimbabwe's top scorer that game). Extras has also scored three half-centuries in ODIs, his highest score of 59 occurring twice in 1989 and 1999, both for Pakistan. For some reason, Extras just really loves scoring for Pakistan.
Extras has top-scored in 10 completed T20I innings, the lowest of which was once again a score of 7, this time coming for Turkey against Luxembourg in 2019 (Turkey scored just 28 runs in that match). Extras has never scored a half-century in T20Is, with his top score being 39 for Czechia against Turkey in 2019.
That's strange. This Extras fellow, despite having a 144-year-long batting career, has never scored a century, or even approached a century. I personally think that he's been given enough chances and should be dropped. I've heard that he can't even field or bowl, so what's the point in having him in the team if he's not scoring?
​

Conclusion

When discussing impressive batting feats, a lot of people place emphasis on comparisons: Who has the better average? Who has scored more runs? Who has the better strike rate in white-ball cricket? Who has the better beard? Who has the lower dot-ball percentage when batting in the third innings of the second Test in the series on a Tuesday with a lead of 100 runs or more?
However, the most unusual achievements in the art of batting tend not to derive from excellence in the craft but rather from unique circumstances which lead to bizarre stats or scorelines. To achieve what no batsman has achieved before in international cricket, even if it's something terrible such as becoming the first batsman in the history of international cricket to be out hit wicket for a diamond duck, is impressive in its own way. Also, the subsequent memes can be pretty funny.
I hope you enjoyed the read. Next time, I'll be doing the same thing but for bowling. Get ready for first-ball wickets and economy rates of 0.