Mr.Deano you got it wrong.It should be top two not top four as i do accept that Laxman and Sourav are poor runners.Sachin is a good runner between wickets and Rahul too is not bad.I would also like to comment that Rahul is a singles players so he need to be above the average standards of running but then we should also keep in mind that 'Mr Dravid' keeps wickets for 50 overs and nearly bats for the same amount of overs due to lack of form of Sachin. I think we are getting to demanding with Dravid . Laxman and Sourav surely need to improve their running between the wickets.
I would not agree with Dean Jones as the top four are bad runners. Sachin Tendulkar is one of the quickest and best in judging a run.Virender Shewag was never bad.Rahul Dravid lacks speed but he has been performing consistently and the major contribution of his runs are from singles, which should prove he is a good in running.
In the top four the only bd runner is Sourav Ganguly.He has never been quick even in his early days.So the point is, it is not the top four but Sourav Ganguly.
how can he say that sachin is a poor runner...he is one among the best in business.....sehwag is also quite a good runner.the only problem with him is the calling bet the wickets...
Dean Jones has lost his marbles to call Sachin a lazy runner. Doesn't he remember while playing long innings against the Aussies, he was completing his runs faster than his junior partners at the crease.
hi everybody, its unfair from the part of dean jones to make such a statement. he should not make statement after assesing just a single game. players like sehwag, tendulkar, laxman, ganguly has showed their class in their careers and continue to be the best players of this modern indian cricket era. true, they were not upto their mark in the game against uae in the 1st game. for any team it takes some kind of practice or i 1 or 2 games to get adjusted to the new conditions. this happens to teams like australia also. india is not an exception. hope indians will raise their performance level and win the asia cup.
jones has said that top 4 batsman are lazy runners.
i can't accept his words.Sachin Tendulkar is an excellent runner between the wickets.he is one among the fastest.we can accept that sourav&laxman are little rusty between the wickets.but sourav equalises
it finally with his big hits.also sehwag is not a poor runner.As our players are out of action for the past few months they were a bit
rusty in the first game.they will come strongly in the game against srilanka & will win convincingly.
well the running between the wickets in last match was pretty poor but to say that india's top 4 are lazy runners is not completely true.it seems as if professor deano forgot about tendulkar whu is one of the best when it comes to running between wickets.how can u judge him to be a lazy runner based on one match were he was there only until the tenth over? but one must admit that the bengal tiger and laxman are little lax when it comes to running.
We 've seen how people in the media often tend to write according to the circumstances without evaluating the truth behind what's being written. It is really sorry to note these people tend to contradict themselves in the process and the end is but a ridiculous column of lil reading significance.
Dean Jones, it appears to have fallen into the same trap this time around calling india's top four batsmen lazy runners and what is more egregious is the fact that these very 5 words are the headlines of his column.
There will be absolutely no doubt in the minds of any cricket aficionado that Tendulkar and Sehwag are far better runners then many a current world batsman. Dravid and Ganguly, I have no qualms in accepting are surely below par when it comes to running but their lack of foot speed is more than made up by the next two batsmen, Kaif and Yuvraj who are truly mavens when it comes to the act of running between the wickets.
I'll be really happy if columns which we read with respect have a fair degree of accuracy and would kindly request the columnists to refrain from indulging in unwanted surrealisms to sell themselves.
