• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

saeed anwar

Mr Mxyzptlk

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
wahindiawah said:
You obviously haven't heard of Irfan Pathan which is often being compared with Akram by none other than u geat Akram and Imran :p

Irfan also happen to scare the hell out of ur so called great batter "youhanna".

Atleast a ppl of 1 billion has a class pacer in Pathan and talented one's in Khan and Balaji, unfortunately accross the border there seems to be extreme shortage of talent.


Anyway i'm not trying to humiliate pakistanis, i think that they should listen to Imran khan and improve their domestic structure otherwise they will soon find themself in a situation where they will be only able to compete with sides like SL and Bang.
Click to expand...
When Pathan actually has some real success rather than hype, your arrogant comments may be justified. Until then, you best be careful.

First off, let's see that quote where Youhana claims to have his nightmares inhabited by Pathan. No? Didn't think so.
 
Last edited:
Mr Mxyzptlk

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
wahindiawah said:
a few yeas back when India used to play with the likes of Prasad and Kuruvilla and Pakistan had w's then it would have looked wierd for an Indian to criticize Pakistani pacers, but things have changed drastically now.India have Pathan, Zaheer Khan and others like Balaji and co, in contrast Paistan just have Akhter.
Click to expand...
Right, so Akhtar is better than all the Indian pacers and none have really stepped up with results as yet to say that they are better than the other Pakistani prospects. Don't even start on Pathan's Bangladeshi dream.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
wahindiawah said:
but things have changed drastically now.India have Pathan, Zaheer Khan and others like Balaji and co, in contrast Paistan just have Akhter.
Click to expand...

So where's the quality in those bowlers you list then?
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Peanutbutterbar said:
It's not simple as that. He made 501. That's simple as that. No more no less, he got 501 and that's what the records will always show.
Click to expand...
And the scorebooks aren't all that matter.
Simple as that.
He got 501* against his name, and it's not as simple as that.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Peanutbutterbar said:
Tendulker could have easily have lost concentration and gotten out soon after, but he didn't he caried on, because that's what happens in international cricket, people drop catches all the time, shouldn't take away from the innings.
Click to expand...
Yes, people drop catches all the time at present, but of course it does take away from the innings - the whole point of batting is to score runs without getting out.
A batsman can't get credit for not getting out if he actually did get out.
It's nothing to do with the batsman if a fielder drops a straightforward catch.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
wahindiawah said:
Who's talking about onedayers? in onedayers even Saleem Elahi hasa good average!!
Click to expand...
Which of course couldn't possibly be because Elahi is a good one-day player (at least in the subcontinent - so don't start on that Anant) could it?
Why do I get the feeling you're so keen on the "who's talking about the one-dayers" stance because Pakistan have beaten India in 4 out of 4 recently?
Like it or not, Pakistan do have a good opener at present - in the ODIs - in Salman Butt.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Hit4Six said:
should but wasnt...he went on to make the wonderful 98 so regardless of what SHOULD have happened his innings was great and not some 'pristine' 47
Click to expand...
No, regardless of what did happen, the thing that matters is what Tendulkar did, not what the fielders did.
Tendulkar got 2 chances to bat and scored 48 (so it seems, not 47) - if he'd been caught, it is not a should but a would have scored 47 and been credited as a pristine 47, not the great 98 that people mistakenly dub it.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Hit4Six said:
exactly! and it doesnt detract from a great innings
Click to expand...
How not?
But for the missed chance the innings would have been 48 and no more, and it was only considered a great innings after that.
And not too many people consider 48s great innings on flat-pitch ODIs.
 
S

Sehwag309

Banned
Richard said:
It was something that should quite clearly have been taken, simple as.
Click to expand...
..he wasn't in a position, Wasim suggested that he should have been standing at the edge of the circle, which he wasn't..so he was gonna make a catch outta it which offcourse he didn't. Nothing simple abt it
 
S

Sehwag309

Banned
Richard said:
How not?
But for the missed chance the innings would have been 48 and no more, and it was only considered a great innings after that.
And not too many people consider 48s great innings on flat-pitch ODIs.
Click to expand...
..game isn't over until someone's actually out. What you are suggesting is just an lazy chair argument (with couple of beers if u like)...and the only one's arguing abt the innings is in that group, not the world
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Yet elsewhere you're sayng all that matters is the number of runs scored?
Click to expand...
Depends where - if you're talking about my CW XI coaching role - I've said time and again that I'm not going to take any notice of first-chance averages in selection nor do I expect anyone to.
Who's got the runs against their name is all that matters in selection. You can't drop someone who's just got 200 against his name because they needed 15 let-offs.
The only time I've ever used first-chance averages is in the rating of the esteem of batsmen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top