Is Pathan more talented than Akram was at his early phase?

[Nate]

While I agree with your other points , I have to disagree with this one . Lillee might have been a great bowler , but he hasnt shown himself to be a coach who has groomed excellent fast bowlers...It could be a problem with the new guys themselves , but still look at the awe-inspiring list of disciples.......Zaheer , Nehra, Brett Lee , Bracken (?)...

HEY!!!!!! Never bag Bracken when im on the forums! Ive always had respect for you Deja, but now youve taken it too far...

Wasim was amazing. Pathan is a rookie, talented, but hes just starting. Please dont try and compare the two.

 

[Deja moo]

HEY!!!!!! Never bag Bracken when im on the forums! Ive always had respect for you Deja, but now youve taken it too far...

Sorry .

Wasim was amazing. Pathan is a rookie, talented, but hes just starting. Please dont try and compare the two.

I'm not!! I said I agreed with his other points !

 

[bryce]

man when i read that clown who said akram debuted against a weak new zealand team i was about to have a crack at him myself but it seems two people beat me to it, who both obviously know *something* about cricket, unlike C_C who appears to be making stuff up to try and make a point ! pathan gets more movement than wasim 'the king of movement" akram ? come on!

 

[Arrow]

A few weeks ago i checked up pathans stats and was surprised to see they stunk.I was actually surprised because i was one of the many taken by the hype and his "moments", but in reality his bowling while showing lots of potential, is weak at the moment and to compare him to akram is a joke.
Hes not even in the same class as a young akram.

 

[masterblaster]

A few weeks ago i checked up pathans stats and was surprised to see they stunk.I was actually surprised because i was one of the many taken by the hype and his "moments", but in reality his bowling while showing lots of potential, is weak at the moment and to compare him to akram is a joke.
Hes not even in the same class as a young akram.

I agree partly to this, mainly when you say he's not even in the league of a young Akram. But he has the promise and the potential to go as far as he wants. His ODI stats are very impressive and you dont just with the ICC Young Player of the Year award over nothing.

He will improve his test record as time goes on, and I feel he'll lower that test average to something respectable. But to compare Pathan with Akram is plain ridiculous.

 

[Nate]

I'm not!! I said I agreed with his other points !

yeh mate, that last comment was not directed at you.

 

[tooextracool]

heard the word overrated before?
pathan is going to average 40 + for a long time unless he does something about his pace.

 

[Swervy]

I remember seeing Wasim play in about 85 and it was so obvious that he was going to be a star for a long time...Pathan hasnt really done that much to suggest to me that by the time he is 30 he will be considered yet another Indian trundler who has picked up 200 wickets at an average of about 30 or so.

 

[C_C]

Great batting lineup ?
New Zealand ?

Dude- i dont misuse the word 'great'.
Martin Crowe was a VERY good player.....NOT great......Great is a term i reserve for the likes of Lara,Tendulkar,Tugga,Viv,Sunny,Border,Miandad etc....
Richard Hadlee was a great bowler but his batting ? great ? please....

The NZ batting in the mid 80s was behind the Windies,Pakistan,Australia and England......
That leaves about SL and IND who are on par or worse.......thats a GREAT lineup ?
Name me ONE batsman from the NZ lineup back then, apart from Martin Crowe who would walk into the top 3 teams today - the answer is NOBODY.

Irfan went to MRF and had Akram 'coach' him for a few hours......but you think that even BEGINS to compare with having the advice 'real time and on field' from a great mentor and bowler like Imran Khan ?
You think talking about what you did wrong/could've done on the field AFTER the day's play has the same level of impact as getting advice from a great bowler IN BETWEEN deliveries ?
if you think so, you clearly have NEVER played cricket at a competitive level....

Arjun- i dont think you've seen Pathan bowl much. He is pretty darn good with the new ball...infact his genuine weakness right now is bowling with the old ball......and averages ? Care to tell me what was Imran Khan's bowling average at a similar stage ?
making your debut and playing more than 50% of your matches in the early phases of your career against OZ of today is like making your debut against the Windies of the 70s and 80s- you are toast.....
so that aint a guage.....
the only other team he bowled against, PAK, he has done pretty darned well and PAK arnt the strongest of the teams but are in the top half.


As per as movement and variety goes, you are thinking of the Akram in the 90s......
i've seen Akram in his younger days..... and if you bother getting a tape or two, you'd see that Akram back then had excellent speed and the delivery that jagged back into the right handers.....ie, in terms of variety, he is slightly behind Pathan.....
Akram didnt start getting the kinda movement he did in his prime until the late 80s ( 89 series against IND when he tried for the first time to bowl slower but with more movement)....and he himself admits that early on in his career he made the error of sacrificing movement for speed....
Akram in his formative years got no more movement than the likes of Zaheer Khan or Brett Lee - ie, precious little movement.
Akram post IND 1989 is the Akram you are talking about....one who bowled mostly in the high 80s and got crazy movement.
He didnt develop the leg-cutter till the famous tour of ENG where Wasim and Waqar decimated ENG........

As i said, i've followed Akram's career in detail....you'd do well to do likewise before commenting and not going by your memories of Akram, which are mostly of him in the 90s...

 

[Sanz]

Well Akram did have the pace to makeup for the lack of movement, didn't he ?? As for the NZ batting lineup being behind Pakistan, WI, Australia, England, I dont know how you say that because apart from Javed Miandad, Pak didn't have any batsmen who could walk into top 3 batting lineup today, Australia had one of the worst batting lineups in the world then and except Border they didn't have any batsmen who walk into top 3 sides today. IMO NZ batting lineup was better than India, Australia, Pakistan, SL. Only England and WI were better.

 

[nightprowler10]

i dont think you've seen Pathan bowl much. He is pretty darn good with the new ball...infact his genuine weakness right now is bowling with the old ball

I have watched Irfan bowl quite a few times now, and when I first saw him, I didn't need to be told that Akram was an influence on him. Anyway, what you say about the Pathan and the new ball is true, he does a lot better with it than most newcomers, but he has the one problem that is very common in subcontinent rookies. He does great with the new ball in home-like conditions. He amazed me during the Asia Cup, and let me down during ICC champions trophy. Akram was good with the ball in most pitches he played at in that stage, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[C_C]

Well Akram did have the pace to makeup for the lack of movement, didn't he ?? As for the NZ batting lineup being behind Pakistan, WI, Australia, England, I dont know how you say that because apart from Javed Miandad, Pak didn't have any batsmen who could walk into top 3 batting lineup today, Australia had one of the worst batting lineups in the world then and except Border they didn't have any batsmen who walk into top 3 sides today. IMO NZ batting lineup was better than India, Australia, Pakistan, SL. Only England and WI were better.

okay...apart from Miandad, no other from the PAK lineup would walk into the top 3 batting sides in the world today.
But the point is, NZ batting lineup was still helluva lot weaker than PAK, AUS and ENG.
Martin Crowe was not in Miandad's class.......Shoaib Mohammed was better than the next-best in the lineup and so was Salim Malik.

ENG had Gower and Gooch, who were better than any kiwi save Crowe and Gatting/Botham was the equal of any other kiwi with the bat.
AUS had Boone,Deano and Border- all better than anyone in NZ side (apart from Crowe but Border was better than him).

Point is, NZ never had a great batting lineup or the top 3-4 in its era.

i would like you to check the records of their batsmen and prove me otherwise.........

 

[Top_Cat]

Great batting lineup ?
New Zealand ?

No-one said they were great. *You* said they were weak which was quite simply not the case.

Martin Crowe was a VERY good player.....NOT great......Great is a term i reserve for the likes of Lara,Tendulkar,Tugga,Viv,Sunny,Border,Miandad etc....

Maybe you should stop watching highlights tapes and take a look at these players. Martin Crowe was one of the 80's great players who's career was somewhat hampered by injury. To my mind, the fact this is even in question shows you either haven't seen much of his batting or are somewhat biased again NZ. Crowe was a modern great and, although I hate to bring up the 'everyone agrees with me' argument, I've seen enough of him and enough of others' opinions of him to know that it's as close to true as one would care to get.

The NZ batting in the mid 80s was behind the Windies,Pakistan,Australia and England......

Windies, yes. Pakistan, yes. England, about on par. Australia, errrr no.

Name me ONE batsman from the NZ lineup back then, apart from Martin Crowe who would walk into the top 3 teams today - the answer is NOBODY.

AGAIN, no-one said they were great. Mate, it's difficult to have a discussion with someone who insists on debunking a point no-one actually made. As for who'd make the top 3 sides today, it's irrelevent. The point of the matter is that you stated NZ's batting line-up was 'weak' when that's total rubbish. In fact, that 'weak' batting line-up managed to beat a Pakistani team *convincingly* (2-0) which included bowlers like Azeem Hafeez, Wasim and Abdul Qadir. BNot an altogether strong bowling line-up at the time but hardly a weak one. And it's not as if that same batting line-up didn't only beat Pakistan at the time. NZ were probably as close to a top-3 team at that time as they've been in their history.

Irfan went to MRF and had Akram 'coach' him for a few hours......but you think that even BEGINS to compare with having the advice 'real time and on field' from a great mentor and bowler like Imran Khan ?

Now you're seriously getting ridiculous (and subsequently boring). How would you know how long Lillee coached Pathan for? The answer, as we all already know, is that you do not. So why would you even say that?

You think talking about what you did wrong/could've done on the field AFTER the day's play has the same level of impact as getting advice from a great bowler IN BETWEEN deliveries ?
if you think so, you clearly have NEVER played cricket at a competitive level....

Heh, clearly. I'm so over this, I'm not even going to point out to you how wrong you are.

As for the rest, I've seen it plenty of Wasim bowl and still disagree. Get over it. No-one is denying Pathan has potential but rating in the same galaxy as Wasim early on is just crazy. That's just my opinion of course.

[

AUS had Boone,Deano and Border- all better than anyone in NZ side (apart from Crowe but Border was better than him).

AT THE TIME, you couldn't be more wrong. And as for Border being better, well he certainly has a better record but the big difference between the two is this; Border built a career on being able to play superbly within his limitations. Guys like Crowe didn't seem to have any.

i would like you to check the records of their batsmen and prove me otherwise.........

Okay sure; Tendulkar is a far better player than Lara. His record proves it. The great debate is over. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[C_C]

No-one said they were great. *You* said they were weak which was quite simply not the case.

this was in response to:

Sanz saying this:

I guess same can be said about Akram and Irfan. Whoever says that Akram Played a weak NZ team forgets that the NZ team Akram played had a great batting line up which included one of the best batsman of that era Martin Crowe, his brother, current Indian coach John Wright, Jermey Coney, A world Class All rounder in Hadlee.

i suggest you read the thread a bit more carefully, mate.

Maybe you should stop watching highlights tapes and take a look at these players. Martin Crowe was one of the 80's great players who's career was somewhat hampered by injury. To my mind, the fact this is even in question shows you either haven't seen much of his batting or are somewhat biased again NZ. Crowe was a modern great and, although I hate to bring up the 'everyone agrees with me' argument, I've seen enough of him and enough of others' opinions of him to know that it's as close to true as one would care to get.

great is a lot more than just fluent and stylish batting. by that standard, saleem malik, azharuddin, kallicharan and dough walters are great.
like i said before, i reserve the title 'great' for the creme de la creme.
the likes of Sobers,Viv,Greg Chappell, Border,Gavaskar,Miandad,Lara,Tendulkar,etc.

Crowe was very very good. But not great.

Windies, yes. Pakistan, yes. England, about on par. Australia, errrr no.

i beg to differ.

GAIN, no-one said they were great. Mate, it's difficult to have a discussion with someone who insists on debunking a point no-one actually made. As for who'd make the top 3 sides today, it's irrelevent. The point of the matter is that you stated NZ's batting line-up was 'weak' when that's total rubbish. In fact, that 'weak' batting line-up managed to beat a Pakistani team *convincingly* (2-0) which included bowlers like Azeem Hafeez, Wasim and Abdul Qadir. BNot an altogether strong bowling line-up at the time but hardly a weak one. And it's not as if that same batting line-up didn't only beat Pakistan at the time. NZ were probably as close to a top-3 team at that time as they've been in their history.

again, i beg to differ.
If you are in the bottom half in your era, you are not a good batting lineup. simple as that.
they beat PAK coz they were firing on all cyliners plus PAK were not full strength.....
they were at their best in the 80s but were not a good batting lineup. simple as that.

Now you're seriously getting ridiculous (and subsequently boring). How would you know how long Lillee coached Pathan for? The answer, as we all already know, is that you do not. So why would you even say that?

i suggest you read what i said a bit more carefully.

Heh, clearly. I'm so over this, I'm not even going to point out to you how wrong you are.

As for the rest, I've seen it plenty of Wasim bowl and still disagree. Get over it. No-one is denying Pathan has potential but rating in the same galaxy as Wasim early on is just crazy. That's just my opinion of course.

so you are saying that a few words of advice AFTER the match has finished is just as valuable as a few word of advice real time and between EACH DELIVERY ?

Border built a career on being able to play superbly within his limitations. Guys like Crowe didn't seem to have any.

Crowe was a lot less consistent than Border.
gimme an average talent who plays within his limitations to average 50 over a mercurial genius like crowe or lawrence rowe who arnt consistent enough any day of the week.

 

[vandemataram]

He is a decent bowler, but is not the right choice as a specialist bowler. There are better bowlers in India than Irfan Pathan, for the new ball.

Can you kindly name the available bowlers who are better than Pathan? Your post seems to suggest that Pathan doesn't deserve a place in Indian team as a "specialist bowler".I am amazed to read ur post as i consider Pathan as the best pacer that India currently have.

 

[Top_Cat]

i suggest you read the thread a bit more carefully, mate.

Depends upon the context in which you take the word 'great'. I think it's very clear that he didn't mean 'great', as in, all-time great but 'great' as a generic term for 'above average' or 'very good' and y'know what? I think you know it.

great is a lot more than just fluent and stylish batting. by that standard, saleem malik, azharuddin, kallicharan and dough walters are great.
like i said before, i reserve the title 'great' for the creme de la creme.
the likes of Sobers,Viv,Greg Chappell, Border,Gavaskar,Miandad,Lara,Tendulkar,etc.

Crowe was very very good. But not great.

Oye, fine. It still remains that Crowe was a very tough player to bowl to and made an average batting line-up above average which again strengthens my argument that the NZ batting line-up was NOT weak, as you stated earlier. Talk about concentrating on the minutae.

If you are in the bottom half in your era, you are not a good batting lineup. simple as that.

And NZ of the time were NOT in the bottom-half if series/Test wins are to be taken as an indication.

they were at their best in the 80s but were not a good batting lineup. simple as that.

No it's NOT that simple. Look you can poke your fingers into your ears, say " La la la la" and block out any evidence to the contrary but just because you say they were a weak batting line up doesn't make it so. In fact, their results of the time point to an entirely different picture. You're acting just like those who say Murali is a chucker despite the scientific evidence to the contrary (and if this turns into a Murali thread, I'll fricken' close it so to all those who had the thought even cross their minds, DON'T). You say one thing but the evidence points to the contary. Other than arbitrarily deigning them to be 'weak', what else do you have to prove it?

i suggest you read what i said a bit more carefully.

I did. You said he 'coached' him for a few hours and I asked how you could know that. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

so you are saying that a few words of advice AFTER the match has finished is just as valuable as a few word of advice real time and between EACH DELIVERY ?

No I didn't. It depends. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Yes whilst out on the field, it would seem superficially that the best advice could be had but Imran would also have been bowling (not to mention thinking about his batting and the responsibilities therein) and so had to concentrate on his own game too. And there's a lot to be said for advice from someone who is 'outside' the team/playing environment such as Dennis Lillee who might pick up on a technical flaw which can't be seen from a player on the field. Both methods have their flaws and advantages with neither being proveably superior to the other in my opinion. It basically comes down to the type of advice/approach players prefer more than anything. Show me I'm objectively wrong; I bet you can't.

Crowe was a lot less consistent than Border.
gimme an average talent who plays within his limitations to average 50 over a mercurial genius like crowe or lawrence rowe who arnt consistent enough any day of the week.

Well good on you because that's just your preference. It doesn't prove one way or the other who was 'better' out of Crowe or Border and is really irrelevant to the discussion at hand except that both Border and Crowe made good batting lineups better, which again serves to show that NZ were NOT a weak batting line up at the time Wasim made his debut.

 

[Top_Cat]

And just to further add to the argument that NZ weren't a weak team in the mid to late 80's, between 1984 and 1990, here are their results:

Pak Away Loss 0-2
Pak Home Win 2-0
WI Away Loss 0-2
Aus Away Win 2-1
Aus Home Win 1-0
Eng Away Win 1-0
SL Away Draw 0-0 Two Tests cancelled
Aus Away Loss 1-0
Eng Home Draw 0-0
Ind Away Loss 2-1
Pak Home Draw 0-0
Aus Away Draw 0-0 One Test
Ind Home Win 1-0
Aus Home Win 1-0 One Test

Series Wins 6
Series Losses 4
Drawn Series 4

I'm not saying they were a 'great' team or the best but they were at least in the middle to top tier in the 80's. Not one home loss in 6 years with only one undecided series. Pretty good results for a country with less than 3 million people during that time, dont ya think?

 

[PAKMAN]

i agree that martin crow was not only good he was a great player

 

[Beleg]

Wasim Akram himself considered Martin Crow the best against reverse-swing, which is enough for me.

 

[Top_Cat]

ANd let's not forget what an amazing player of spin Martin Crowe was too. All in the footwork and his footwork was up there with the very best.