Records Do They Mean Anything Anymore?

source

The topic of records was raised again with regard to cricket and the batting high scores when the stand in SA skipper declared when he was set on 367 and needing 34 runs to pass the test world record. Brian Lara set the high score of 400 against England back in 2004 so this has stood for the last 21 years.

Mulder had no interest in beating Lara's score of 400 because this score was against Zimbabwe and without disrespecting them too much they are not very good and so the score is meaning less. Same as the Mathew Hayden score of 380 also against Zimbabwe which is kind of pointless and represents nothing.

Records in team sports only have meaning when achieved against the best and otherwise are just numbers. I can recall a game of cricket I played which we won with only 6 players and I scored the highest number of runs in a match. I do not know how many runs I scored as again the opponents were than and it does not exactly count for anything. Kind of the same thing and not a match I fondly remember as in sport you only remember the tough close battles.

Many were saying that Mulder does not have the killer instinct and he should have gone on and broken the Lara record, but those individuals obviously do not play sport. Firstly cricket is a team sport and the team comes first and secondly their is a level of respect for certain players.

If this game was against a top 3 or 4 team in the world then yes by all means he is entitled to beat the record if possible. No one is saying he cannot do this in the future or anyone else, but against low tier nations what is the point? The achievement is kind of diluted and no one will remember it even if he beats Lara's 400 score. This is a pointless exercise and what counts playing these weaker nations is to make sure you win and nothing else. SA won the match within 3 days and had 2 days spare which shows their dominance.

With an extra 2 days Mulder could have gone past 500 but then you have no guarantees your team would win as weather could play a role or something else could happen. Getting the result was what was important here and not individual performances.

I can recall many years ago other batsmen used to retire before they passed a cricket legends score. Back in 1998 Mark Taylor retired his score on 334 which was exactly the same score as Sir Donald Bradman and refused to eclipse the legends score. Mathew Hayden then ruined this of course by scoring the 380 against Zimbabwe and up till that point records meant something.

I am one who believes records are meant to be broken as long as they are under the right conditions and actually are something the individual should be proud about having been tested properly by decent opposition.

Posted Using INLEO