Originally Posted by C_C
This is my final reply to this thread, as i have better things to do than educate idiots of this planet.
fundamental contradiction due to erroneous understanding of english.
I am not gonna repeat myself. I have said what you require to be considered a potential great. read and learn.
You need ESL courses..... me thinks English as first language courses would be too challenging. Again, fundamental inconsistency in your quote(highlighted part). For the last time, Performance is not a required criteria to have potential.
In this very thread you 'assured me' that Pathan doesnt bowl in the mid 80s...like i said, shut up or take the wager that his AVERAGE SPEED in the OZ series and PAK last year was 85-86mph.
Again, i have addressed this - even IF your spinner theory is taken into account, ENG didnt play a single spinner for quiete a few games...and Cork/Caddick/Gough/Fraser didnt play very much together...essentially it means that the 3rd seamer's place is predominantly occupied by the seamers i mentioned in my list. Since ENG didnt play spinners always, that opens up the 4th bowler's spot sometimes too.... if you are too thick to understand, it means approx 60-70% of the time the 3rd seamer's spot would be open and 20-25% (independent instances to 3rd seamer's spot) would be open as well...which means he could slot in the bowling approx 80-60% time, which was my initial claim
Flintoff was initially picked as a very much bowling allrounder...in anycase, i didnt mention Flintoff, someone else did.
a whole 6 runs after playing a number of years as compared to one who's barely been playing more than a year....
Besides, you need to learn some mathematics after you learn English. Pathan without Bangladesh(at the time of the argument, before this match), Pathan's ave. was 41+change.
Craig White averages 37+change. that is FOUR whole runs...not six.
learn mathematics. Pronto.
41. - 37. is not six. it is 4.
In anycase, they were tried and tested failures, despite bowling in a much better overall pace attack as opposed to a young upstart with the right tools to be a great.
reverse swing was very much heard of- its been around since the late 70s/early 80s.
But no, most english commentators dont know diddly squat about reverse swing. They fundamentally contradict themselves many times when they say 'reverse swing' and confuse it with late swing.
Regardless, they have mistaken late swing for reverse swing and i stand by that. Like i said, you'd best not debate this with me or i will be forced to give you a lesson in fluid dynamics, something that was one of my strong points.
Try Tendulkar, try Inzamam. Try Dravid. Try Graeme Smith.
They all have said that Pathan's inswinger is an awesome inswinger.....i am yet tohear anyone say that about White, who's was merely decent.
you cant tell something if you dont know the fundamental criteria for it. Granted, you dont need to understand the mechanics for it...but reverse swing is when the ball swings AWAY from the shiny side. And i can categorically say that most commentators dont haev a clue about reverse swing...they just throw it around for the sake of it and in many instances it is late swing.
If you **** me off enough, i will say whatever i want. If you think you can do better, bring it!
Unfortuately, your comments about IND has been true over the last few years.....but i still havnt seen ANY national media overhype mediocre players to the level England does...and it has everything to do with you since you were quoting articles from the british media from hoboken journalists.
The guardian and the sun carried articles where they announced Harmison as the new Ambrose....hell they went even as far as to say that he is delifery-for-delivery a match for king curtley.
BBC, Sun, Gaurdian, wimbledon brit commentators etc. during the 98-2002 period... said Henman is the only one who can give Sampras a genuine hard fight...when in reality he crapped all over the court when Sampras faced him- regularly.
And if you can get your brain fixed pronto, you might realise then, that if you never said the above, you have no business contradicting that Pathan reminds people of Akram, when one of those people is Akram himself!