India Or Pakistan

[C_C]

Unless he bowled 9 or more no balls or wides then I'd take that bet.

Bet accepted.

You will have your proof in a week to 10 days, since i require some external help on this.

[Sanz]

Unless he bowled 9 or more no balls or wides then I'd take that bet.

Marc I think he meant opening spell not opening over.

[C_C]

Marc I think he meant opening spell not opening over.

err you are right ofcourse. Apologies for the obvious cockup.

[Sanz]

Kabir Ali,James Kirtley, Martin Saggers, Richard Johnson, James Anderson, Simon Jones, Mathew Hoggard, Alex Tudor, Mark Ealham, Alan Mullaly,Chris Silverwood, Dominic Cork, Craig White.

Some of the english bowlers I have had the pleasure of watching in last 10-15 years and I can safely say that Pathan has easily outperformed most of them at least at this stage of his career, He has shown much better potential than every one in that list did.

[marc71178]

Marc I think he meant opening spell not opening over.

I knew what he meant, but as a keen gambler I never miss a chance to take up surefire bets!

[marc71178]

Simon Jones, Mathew Hoggard

I didn't have a look at the rest of the list in too much detail, but I wouldn't pick him above either of those 2 and question how he's outperformed them.

[Richard]

Kabir Ali,James Kirtley, Martin Saggers, Richard Johnson, James Anderson, Simon Jones, Mathew Hoggard, Alex Tudor, Mark Ealham, Alan Mullaly,Chris Silverwood, Dominic Cork, Craig White.

Some of the english bowlers I have had the pleasure of watching in last 10-15 years and I can safely say that Pathan has easily outperformed most of them at least at this stage of his career, He has shown much better potential than every one in that list did.

Kabir - hmm, I'd say they're about equal (and Kabir obviously hasn't been given the chance Pathan has)
Kirtley\Saggers - yes, fair enough.
Johnson - emphatically NO. He's played 1 proper Test-match, on a Galle dustbowl.
Anderson - emphatically YES, Pathan knows more about line and length than Anderson has ever known so far.
Jones, Hoggard - no, not on their recent performances.
Tudor - most certainly not on his early performances (after his 7th Test he had 24 wickets at 24.70).
Ealham\Mullally - yes, were never Test-class bowlers.
Silverwood - yes, read above and probably it'll stay that way.
Cork\White - no, no way in a million years.

[Richard]

Good god, talk about an overanalytical quotefest!

*Backs away from thread slowly*

Amazing thing is, I can't believe many have noticed the large number of insults!!!!

[tooextracool]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

And comming from a halfbaked brain like you.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

[C_C]

This is my final reply to this thread, as i have better things to do than educate idiots of this planet.

that you show potential you have to perform first,

fundamental contradiction due to erroneous understanding of english.

nd by that definition, basically any bowler in world cricket today has the potential to be an all time great.

I am not gonna repeat myself. I have said what you require to be considered a potential great. read and learn.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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- who was picked for his all round capabilities(or more importantly for his superior batting abilities) as opposed to his bowling.

Flintoff was initially picked as a very much bowling allrounder...in anycase, i didnt mention Flintoff, someone else did.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

If you **** me off enough, i will say whatever i want. If you think you can do better, bring it!

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.

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.

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.

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.

eally?
who ever said that henman was as good as sampras on grass?

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 manage to ever read english correctly, you might realise that ive never said any of the above

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!

[honestbharani]

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!

I don't wanna get into the other stuff, but the overhype part is true about England.....God, I remember Hick......The hype practically destroyed his career. I always felt he was a good player but juz couldn't handle all the hype.

[krishneelz]

i personally dont like indians because i am one

[Swervy]

I don't wanna get into the other stuff, but the overhype part is true about England.....God, I remember Hick......The hype practically destroyed his career. I always felt he was a good player but juz couldn't handle all the hype.

I think its something each country is guilty of in some way

Regarding Hick..he actually did look like,for a time, the second coming of Bradman,he was smacking pretty much everyone around for a time (incl. WI)

[Nnanden]

Hick most certainly looked amazing didnt he?!?

[C_C]

He smacked around WI ? when ?
His first series he averaged a meager 10 runs from 7 inning...second series he averaged 35 from 9 innings.......it wasnt until the third series - 4 years after his debut in 95- when he did any good against WI, averaging 50 from 10 innings.....but he flopped in his last series in 2000...16.5 average from 7 innings......

Hick averaged 10.7 in his first year, 23.2 in his second, 47.5 in his third and 39.1 in his fourth and it wasnt until his fifth year that he averaged 50 in the year...and then promptly went downhill again.......

As far as i am concerned he was the most overhyped player EVER to play cricket.......**** poor average of 31 through his career and compared to Bradman during his early years and around 95 some english commentators had the audacity to suggest that he was better than Tendulkar........now thats what i call talkin shyte.

Would take a player like Ganguly or Fleming 10 times outta 10 over Hick.