How many Centuries will Pietersen end up with?

embee wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Watch them again. They were appalling. Two of them were edges that were nowhere near the bat. The third was a ball that was going miles over the stumps. Koertzen was clearly on crack. And racist.

And the "he shouldn't have been playing that shot" argument is rubbish. Batsman sometimes play and miss. Even batsman with perfect technique/confidence. To say he deserved it because he played and missed is ridiculous. Especially as the bat was about four miles away from the ball.

i've watched them plenty of times ...they are all close on first look / real speed ...and obvious mistakes when seen in replay ...so they are not appalling ...just wrong

Eh? The two edges were clearly nowhere near the bat in real-time. Clearly.

Red wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Watch them again. They were appalling. Two of them were edges that were nowhere near the bat. The third was a ball that was going miles over the stumps. Koertzen was clearly on crack. And racist.

And the "he shouldn't have been playing that shot" argument is rubbish. Batsman sometimes play and miss. Even batsman with perfect technique/confidence. To say he deserved it because he played and missed is ridiculous. Especially as the bat was about four miles away from the ball.

But Strauss was also dropped (a sitter) in the only innings he got to fifty and received a favourable decision in another. And to be honest our attack wasn't sensational during that series despite the 5-0 drubbing and the pitches were generally flat. Strauss never did anything on that tour to suggest that he was either in great form or looked to be a class batsman. Cook with a faulty technique had more solidity about him. Even Collingwood made runs on occasions but Strauss always looked like he might get out, poor decisions or not.

What? That attack has to be one our best ever assembled in modern times.

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Watch them again. They were appalling. Two of them were edges that were nowhere near the bat. The third was a ball that was going miles over the stumps. Koertzen was clearly on crack. And racist.

And the "he shouldn't have been playing that shot" argument is rubbish. Batsman sometimes play and miss. Even batsman with perfect technique/confidence. To say he deserved it because he played and missed is ridiculous. Especially as the bat was about four miles away from the ball.

But Strauss was also dropped (a sitter) in the only innings he got to fifty and received a favourable decision in another. And to be honest our attack wasn't sensational during that series despite the 5-0 drubbing and the pitches were generally flat. Strauss never did anything on that tour to suggest that he was either in great form or looked to be a class batsman. Cook with a faulty technique had more solidity about him. Even Collingwood made runs on occasions but Strauss always looked like he might get out, poor decisions or not.

What? That attack has to be one our best ever assembled in modern times.

McGrath was not the same bowler who prospered for most of his career. He was absolutely impotent on the flat tracks. He was bowling from memory. Even Warne was a shadow of Warne at his best. Don't be swayed by the names, both these guys were well passed their peak. And they'd be the first to say that. I doubt KP would have found Warne as easy to hit as he did at times in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth if it had been the Shane Warne from his peak days. Clark was steady but didn't move the ball, Lee bowled with pace but didn't bowl as well during that series as he did at times during last summer. The pitches were also very flat, especially during the first three tests. Melbourne offered some movement but there was nothing there to faze good batsmen.

The pitchs were flat and every bowler took over 20 wickets.

It was a top quality attack. McGrath and Warne were still in top class shape.

PearlJ wrote:The pitchs were flat and every bowler took over 20 wickets.

It was a top quality attack. McGrath and Warne were still in top class shape.

A long way below their best. Just face it, Strauss had a poor series. I'd hate to see how he would have fared on fiery pitches and with our attack at the level it was in the early noughties.

Red wrote:

PearlJ wrote:The pitchs were flat and every bowler took over 20 wickets.

It was a top quality attack. McGrath and Warne were still in top class shape.

A long way below their best. Just face it, Strauss had a poor series. I'd hate to see how he would have fared on fiery pitches and with our attack at the level it was in the early noughties.

Pfft! They were below their very peak, but that really is not a diservice to them. They could still be bowling today and be the 2 best bowlers in the world.

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:

PearlJ wrote:The pitchs were flat and every bowler took over 20 wickets.

It was a top quality attack. McGrath and Warne were still in top class shape.

A long way below their best. Just face it, Strauss had a poor series. I'd hate to see how he would have fared on fiery pitches and with our attack at the level it was in the early noughties.

Pfft! They were below their very peak, but that really is not a diservice to them. They could still be bowling today and be the 2 best bowlers in the world.

I disagree. And the spelling is disservice thank you very much.

Warne declined as a test bowler towards the end of his career. Maybe you're looking at T20/IPL form. Even then he copped a few hammerings. McGrath was also slowing up and becoming more predictable. Warne is pushing forty. Granted he'd be better than any spinner we can turn out. That's more of a reflection though of how bare our spinning cupboard is.

Both Glenn and Shane were not the bowlers they had been in days of yore during the last Ashes series. Strauss was exposed as very ordinary. And he was also very ordinary during this last series against the Saffas, despite them missing Steyn who would have revelled in the conditions during the last two tests. He failed and only salvaged some pride with a fifty in the last innings of a dead rubber. Even then he would have gone early had not Morkel slightly gone over the line.

about 31

taipan wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I'm a thunderc*nt.

Seconded

Thirded.

Red wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:

PearlJ wrote:The pitchs were flat and every bowler took over 20 wickets.

It was a top quality attack. McGrath and Warne were still in top class shape.

A long way below their best. Just face it, Strauss had a poor series. I'd hate to see how he would have fared on fiery pitches and with our attack at the level it was in the early noughties.

Pfft! They were below their very peak, but that really is not a diservice to them. They could still be bowling today and be the 2 best bowlers in the world.

I disagree. And the spelling is disservice thank you very much.

Warne declined as a test bowler towards the end of his career. Maybe you're looking at T20/IPL form. Even then he copped a few hammerings. McGrath was also slowing up and becoming more predictable. Warne is pushing forty. Granted he'd be better than any spinner we can turn out. That's more of a reflection though of how bare our spinning cupboard is.

Both Glenn and Shane were not the bowlers they had been in days of yore during the last Ashes series. Strauss was exposed as very ordinary. And he was also very ordinary during this last series against the Saffas, despite them missing Steyn who would have revelled in the conditions during the last two tests. He failed and only salvaged some pride with a fifty in the last innings of a dead rubber. Even then he would have gone early had not Morkel slightly gone over the line.

You won't get any argument from me that Strauss is ordinary. But McGrath and Warne were as good as they could be in that series. Both got hammered on the Adelaide highway, but that was a one-off. And with Clark in the form of his life and Lee coming into the form of his life, that attack was awesome.

how many centuries? - insufficient to save the pearly white english etonian backside

horace wrote:how many centuries? - insufficient to save the pearly white english etonian backside

See you in 2009!

Whatever number he ends up with, it will be more than Smith.

Red wrote:Whatever number he ends up with, it will be more than Smith.

Hmmm.... Smith is younger and already has more....

sage from pj

PearlJ wrote:

Red wrote:Whatever number he ends up with, it will be more than Smith.

Hmmm.... Smith is younger and already has more....

Only by eight months and he had a big headstart on KP who's mown him down rather well.

I thought I'd bump this as I was thinking about it last night. I always thought that Pietersen would find his scope a little more limited in time and that he would fail to score hundreds at the rate of '1 in 3' that he has so far sustained throughout his career. Hence my original prediction of 28 to 30 in this thread. However, after seeing that knock yesterday, from a man with a broken rib no less, I think my original prediction might have been reserved. The only thing stopping KP racking up 35 hundreds is himself now. He clearly has the genius, and much more than that you could very well argue he should have scored more hundreds by now (particularly at Edgbaston and Brisbane where he threw away hundreds with crap shots).

It's a very interesting one, really. I can understand what's said when a few folk contemplate the potential futures and find themselves at a loss about the scope of Pietersen's future achievements. He could, at this moment in time, go on to score 40 or so hundreds if he keeps going as he has been doing. But there's something about him that makes you stop and go 'no, not happening.'

Perhaps it's the English taint.

too early to say. i think the record for most for the english team is certain. beyond that it depends on how he keeps up his form, injuries, etc. i would put a range of 27-36 centuries

this man is unreal.

Hmmmm, it's limitless really - 15 in 45 Tests, pretty immense, not many with him there. The thing with Pietersen is he thinks so much about his game, he will prosper in most places and rarely have a massive trough - the difference in his centuries is quite stark - i.e. the tempo, the scoring areas, the shots - I continue to be so incredibly impressed with him. It's not because he plays for my team, just that against all-comers he seems to have the ability to dominate.

We are so screwed in Ashes 09.

he got 6 tons and only 1 half ton this year - thats an awesome conversion rate.

id guess around 32

I don't know ... could be anything from mid twenties to mid thirties.

skully wrote:We are so screwed in Ashes 09.

I'll say 34.