[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by C_C

Thank you bharani...obviously this dont doesnt get it......he is seeking to justify potential by existance ( ie results to backup the claim) when the very definition doesnt allow it.

and by that definition, basically any bowler in world cricket today has the potential to be an all time great. how long is it going to take you to realsie, that you show potential you have to perform first, even if you dont have to perform to the level of greatness?

Originally Posted by C_C

Like i said boy, you either put up or shut the FACT up. You think my knowledge is limited, then you debate me and show me wrong.
So far you've been proven (courtesy bharani) to not even know the MEANING of the word 'potential', let alone prove me wrong.

uhh huh, of course, you quite clearly cant read then can you?
the very thing ive been refuting is that pathan cant have potential to greatness, because he hasnt performed yet, hence he doesnt have 'this potential to greatness' rubbish. he doesnt fit in the definition.

Originally Posted by C_C

What ? chicken now ?
you assured me that he doesnt bowl anything but low 80s. Like i said, put your money where your mouth is and bet me. Irfan's average speed during the PAK series in PAK was 84-85mph and against OZ in IND was 85-86mph.
either bet me or STFU.

where did i assure you that? only a fool would consider the odd ball thats in the high 80s to be someones overall pace, as ive said time and time one ball doesnt prove anything, its how you bowl throughout the game.

Originally Posted by C_C

if someone here knew know to operate the quote function properly then maybe i would UNDERSTAND the point, instead of seeing a jumble of my message and yours..

are you going to respond to the question or not? stop bringing up inconsequential things to try and make yourself look better, why look at all the spinners who've played for england over the last few years, when pathan is a pace bowler and his performance should be compared to the english pacers of the past decade.

Originally Posted by C_C

Learn some english. Pronto. Would do you a lotta good. Didnt say Pathan could replace a spinner.... i said that
1. The pacers from that group i mentioned earlier were bulk representatives for one of the bowling spots in the 90s and Pathan could've replaced them.

oh yes lets analyze the bowlers who were in tht group shall we?
flintoff- who was picked for his all round capabilities(or more importantly for his superior batting abilities) as opposed to his bowling.
craig white- who averages a whole 6 runs less than pathan and again was picked for his all round abilities, as opposed to just his bowling
pringle - who averages about 7 runs less than pathan.
chris lewis - who again averaged about 6 runs less than pathan and was picked for his all round capabilities.
devon malcolm who again averaged 6 runs below pathan.

really you are making yourself look more and more stupid every time you post. posting a list of bits and pieces players, all of whom has better bowling averages than pathan really doesnt prove anything. find me someone from england who played somewhat consistently for england in the 90s and had a worse average than pathan? commone now lets hear it?
2. Eng didnt ALWAYS play a spinner and besides, playing a spinner with 37something average just for the sake of variety is remarkably retarded.

Originally Posted by C_C

Actually i do ammend that. Boycott does know what he is talkin about... cant say that about the rest when it comes to reverse swing..i still remember PAK vs ENG early 90s when they had ludicrous idea of reverse swing.

wow a whole 15 years ago, seriously, that was the time when reverse swing was unheard of everywhere other than pakistan. to use that as a reason to explain why no one in england knows anything about reverse swing 10 years later is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by C_C

Oh and FYI, I am as qualified as ANYBODY in cricket- if not more- to talk about reverse swing. I can explain it to you in extreme detail. Not that it is a big thing. Anybody who has done a course or two in intermediate and advanced fluid dynamics can explain reverse swing with far more accuracy and authenticity than Graveney or other hoboken commentators can dream of.
If you wish to take me up on this, open another thread and i will explain it to you in layman's terms.

then maybe you should be smart enough to realise when someone actually bowls reverse huh? but of course boycott, cozier and shastri are all wrong and biased and craig white could never reverse swing the ball

Originally Posted by C_C

The highlighted part is blatant LYING. Show me where I've said that.
All i said is Pathan's inswinger to the rightie is far more potent than White's. Quiete a few batsmen around the globe seem to back up that opinion and most of them have faced Pathan.

so who are these batsman that have said that pathan's in swinger is more potent than white's? who are these batsmen that have said that he even has such a potent in swinger, when he hasnt been able to get too many wickets with them? then again its probably someone from bangladesh.

Originally Posted by C_C

FYI, bulk of crickinfo profiles are done by countrymen or englishmen. Check that up.
And no, most englishmen dont know jack about reverse swing. There is nothing racist or biassed against that- i have years or experience seeing many english commentators and journos have ludicrous idea to what is reverse swing and even as to recently,most cant tell the difference between late swing and reverse swing.

rubbish, absolutely any commentator can tell whats reverse swing,even if he doesnt know how it works. its no surprise that you've ignore tony cozier's comment about white though, guess hes ignorant about it too. really you are the only one whos ever claimed that white couldnt reverse swing it, lets see you bring up any article or anybody whos ever said that white couldnt reverse swing the ball.

Originally Posted by C_C

And comming from a halfbaked brain like you.

you really dont want to get to the insults i can assure you.

Originally Posted by C_C

Thou art too thin skinned. If i dig through BBC archives, i can show you NUMEROUS instances of even english journos admitting that the english media is too quick to overhype a newbie..

as opposed to the indians who overhype basically every player who's ever played cricket. please, dont even start, every country overhypes their players, its all part of the media. whatever this has to do with me i'll never know, because any expert would know better than to overhype a player unless hes proven.

Originally Posted by C_C

Harmison the new Ambrose.

who exactly said that? absolutely no one. most of the people who even suggested that were saying that when he bowled they reminded themselves of ambrose, and if i remember correctly, that came from the players who actually faced him.

Originally Posted by C_C

Michael Owen the new Ronaldo.
On how Henman could match Sampras on Grass...
list is countless..

really?
who ever said that henman was as good as sampras on grass? who has ever said that anyone bar federer is anywhere near as good as sampras on anything?

Originally Posted by C_C

And i have NEVER said he is the new Akram....the most i've alluded to is that his bowling reminds me of Akram's which isnt an exgaggeration, given similarity in their movement(though Akram had more variety than just about anyone) and his yorker is almost a carbon copy of Akram's.Hell even Akram himself said that Irfan reminds him of his younger self...so how the feck are you to challenge that.

and if you manage to ever read english correctly, you might realise that ive never said any of the above, and those who did compare harmison to ambrose said the exact same thing, that he reminded them of ambrose.