India Or Pakistan

[Sanz]

because his average of over 50 speaks for itself doesnt it. hes never had a great series all his career, he hasnt done anything at the domestic level, yet hes test class.

All his career ?? Are you crazy or what ? The guy hasn't even played 2 full years, he is still starting his career, He played 1/2 series in Australia, I guess got injured or something in SA series, . as for him having never had a great series, basically 3 full series, 2 against pak, 1 against BD and ?? Were you watching India-Pakistan (in Pak) series and Ind-Bd series in BD ? How many bowlers have returned with that kind of Figures on so called flat tracks of subcontinents. If BD are so easy to bowl to why does Mcgrath average 25 something against them ??

He is hyped but certainly is test class, and It's not me saying that but those with some cricketing knowledge.

yes you do, and when you do that you realise that their test record isnt affected, they are still brilliant batsmen with brilliant records. when you do it with pathan he goes from being average to pathetic. theres a major difference. bangladesh is a test team, yes, it doesnt make them test class.

Pathan avg. after first series he played - 66.50
Pathan avg. after the last series he played - 33.09

I dont understand how it can be called average to Pathetic. Whether BD is test class or not, it's not for you to decide, ask inzimam and he will tell you about their class, because Pakistan almost lost a test to them.

what is your point? do you even know what overrated means? do you read my posts at all?

Yes, Unfortunately, I do read the garbage you post. And I do know the meaning of over rated. Are you somehow suggesting that when you used 'Merely good' for both Inzimam and Tendulkar you didn't actually mean it ?

[Sanz]

thats like saying either a player was good or not.....theres always someone in between. ive never claimed that his hype was justified, but if someone told me that hick would be a very good test player, he couldnt have been overhyping him

Not again, Just now you accepted that some of the hype hick got was justified and again retracting from that ? In Hick's case they were not claiming 'GOOD' they claimed GREAT. and he turned out to be the hype of the century.

exactly, but at least for a while he looked like being the real thing, and at least he was destroying county attacks. pathan cant even do that.

Hick never looked like the real thing. From the first day in International school of cricket he was uncomfortable and unfit. Pathan has shown the that he can be good (pak & bd tour), it is still too early to dismiss him.

yet pathan cant even succeed against pedestrian batsmen at the domestic level.
mind you if you know anything about hick, you would know that he destroyed the same bowlers who troubled him at the international level with absolute ease at the domestic level, and from 93-96 he destroyed nearly every bowling attack that he faced at the international level.

Domestic Cricket means Zilch NADA, Zero, zip (take your pick).

I can see you being defensive by selectively quoting HICK's figures. Let's see Hick's last 10 series avgs - 8.75, 4, 3, 53.50, 25.62, 12.00, 45.33, 16.57, 16.57, 6.57. Really Bradmansque figures.

[vandemataram]

Congrtas to the 51.79% of you who wanted Pakistan to win

Of more than 45 percent would have been Pakistanis themselves

[marc71178]

That is anybody's guess but I was responding to TEC's statement :-

"..series by series pathan is being proven to be mediocre"

From the stats you have posted above TEC's above statement is proved wrong.

Thanks for doing the work for me.

The only way those numbers don't show him to be mediocre are if they show him as being worse than mediocre.

[Nnanden]

Of more than 45 percent would have been Pakistanis themselves

Haha.... no.

Would`ve been nice if it was a public poll.

[Richard]

I dont understand how it can be called average to Pathetic. Whether BD is test class or not, it's not for you to decide

No, it's not, it's for anyone with any sense to decide.
And absolutely anyone can see that they're nothing close to Test-class, so unless they need some form of argument about a player to include Bangladesh games, they'll realise that Bangladesh games have no relevance whatsoever to proper Test-cricket.

ask inzimam and he will tell you about their class, because Pakistan almost lost a test to them.

Yes, they did - a dead match. Remind me - what's Pakistan's record in dead Tests and ODIs like?

[C_C]

And absolutely anyone can see that they're nothing close to Test-class, so unless they need some form of argument about a player to include Bangladesh games, they'll realise that Bangladesh games have no relevance whatsoever to proper Test-cricket.

In that case, we shouldn't talk about Bradman's 99 ave....should only talk about his 87 or so average as ENG were the only 'competent' bowling attack of his time.
We should also subtract statistics against RSA from Barnes' record, subtract NZ from everyone's record till 1960s, subtract SL from everyone's record till mid 90s, etc. etc.

[Richard]

Hick never looked like the real thing. From the first day in International school of cricket he was uncomfortable and unfit.

From the first day, until his 14th Test.
Between his 14th and 38th Test he certainly did look the real thing, and almost everyone was convinced he'd shaken-off his early troubles.
Sadly for him, they returned and in his last 27 Tests he was every bit as terrible as he was in his first 13 - except when he scored that 107 against SL's weak seamers and that 101 against Zim's even weaker ones.

[Richard]

In that case, we shouldn't talk about Bradman's 99 ave....should only talk about his 87 or so average as ENG were the only 'competent' bowling attack of his time.
We should also subtract statistics against RSA from Barnes' record, subtract NZ from everyone's record till 1960s, subtract SL from everyone's record till mid 90s, etc. etc.

We should indeed - and if you can be bothered to do that I'll salute you.
If I ever need to, indeed, I'll do it.
But given that the present is far more significant I'll only do it for a player I'm currently talking about.
As for SL - the only time they were very poor was the late 80s and early 90s, and even then I'd say they were only as poor as WI are currently. Not as poor as Zim.
Shortly after they entered Test-cricket they had several fine players, and certainly were deserving of playing even if they were the weakest of the nations.

[Sanz]

The only way those numbers don't show him to be mediocre are if they show him as being worse than mediocre.

Take a look at the numbers again. In first series he averaged 65+ and his average after his last series 33 something. Now unless you say 33 is mediocre than 65 then yes.

[Sanz]

From the first day, until his 14th Test.
Between his 14th and 38th Test he certainly did look the real thing, and almost everyone was convinced he'd shaken-off his early troubles.
Sadly for him, they returned and in his last 27 Tests he was every bit as terrible as he was in his first 13 - except when he scored that 107 against SL's weak seamers and that 101 against Zim's even weaker ones.

I haven't read a more selective criteria on this forum.No he still didn't look like the hype we were all led to believe.

[tooextracool]

All his career ?? Are you crazy or what ? The guy hasn't even played 2 full years, he is still starting his career, He played 1/2 series in Australia, I guess got injured or something in SA series, . as for him having never had a great series, basically 3 full series, 2 against pak, 1 against BD and ??

how many do you need? most players would be dropped by now for being as pathetic.

Were you watching India-Pakistan (in Pak) series

yes averaging 28.5, what a fabulous series that is.

and Ind-Bd series in BD ?

im referring to test match cricket only. bd dont count.

How many bowlers have returned with that kind of Figures on so called flat tracks of subcontinents. If BD are so easy to bowl to why does Mcgrath average 25 something against them ??

and macgill averages 12 against them.
and just so you know, mcgrath was bowling with an injury in that 2nd test against b'desh, and he was averaging 11.25 after the 1st test.
the fact that you have to use performances against b'desh to make him look test class says a lot about how poor he is.

He is hyped but certainly is test class, and It's not me saying that but those with some cricketing knowledge.

is that why hes averaging in the 50s then?
and i couldnt care less what people like imran said, ive said that before too. they've been wrong in the past too. even the selectors have realised off late that hes isnt test class ATM, and they've kept him out of the side.

Pathan avg. after first series he played - 66.50
Pathan avg. after the last series he played - 33.09

I dont understand how it can be called average to Pathetic. Whether BD is test class or not, it's not for you to decide, ask inzimam and he will tell you about their class, because Pakistan almost lost a test to them.

umm english please?
i said that when you remove his performances against b'desh his record goes from being average to pathetic, go ahead and do it and you'll see.

Yes, Unfortunately, I do read the garbage you post. And I do know the meaning of over rated. Are you somehow suggesting that when you used 'Merely good' for both Inzimam and Tendulkar you didn't actually mean it ?

no i meant it. what part of it do you not understand?
you can have 2 'good' players, it doesnt mean that one cant be better than the other.

[tooextracool]

Not again, Just now you accepted that some of the hype hick got was justified and again retracting from that ? In Hick's case they were not claiming 'GOOD' they claimed GREAT. and he turned out to be the hype of the century.

not if you could read english. i said that he deserved 'SOME' of his hype. not all of it. because unlike pathan at least he was great at the domestic level.

Hick never looked like the real thing. From the first day in International school of cricket he was uncomfortable and unfit.

in which case you are not fit to watch international cricket. if you seriously think someone who has destroyed SA and australia on occasions, and had an extended period where he was averaging in the high 40s, and is easily one of the best ODI players we've ever had never looked like being the real thing, then you should just give up watching cricket.

Pathan has shown the that he can be good (pak & bd tour), it is still too early to dismiss him.

i havent dismissed him at all. he might still end up becoming a good player. it still doesnt change the fact that he was selected too early, it doesnt change the fact that hes not good enough right now, it doesnt change the fact that he shouldnt be playing test cricket ATM and it doesnt change the fact that he still needs to make serious improvements to his game if he wants to succeed.

Domestic Cricket means Zilch NADA, Zero, zip (take your pick).

I can see you being defensive by selectively quoting HICK's figures. Let's see Hick's last 10 series avgs - 8.75, 4, 3, 53.50, 25.62, 12.00, 45.33, 16.57, 16.57, 6.57. Really Bradmansque figures.

and your point is? seriously where have i claimed that hick was bradmanesque? if you could read i've said that from 93-96 he looked like he might live up to some of that hype, and certain if you looked at his average in that period you would see what im talking about. domestic cricket doesnt mean much in context of rating a player, but when someone is incapable of succeeding in domestic cricket is hyped up to being the next big thing, that is what you call the most overrated player.

[Sanz]

how many do you need? most players would be dropped by now for being as pathetic..

Hick wasn't dropped he went to play for 10 years. Pathan has just started his career, and he is going to be there for long time.

yes averaging 28.5, what a fabulous series that is.

And that is poor ??

im referring to test match cricket only. bd dont count.

Last time I checked, they were a test nation, recognized by ICC. Now unless you have managed a coup and own the ICC and debarred BD from playing test, I will consider them as TEST NATION.

and macgill averages 12 against them.

And Mcgill plays for Australia, he is a TEST Player. IMO he is Test Class.

and just so you know, mcgrath was bowling with an injury in that 2nd test against b'desh, and he was averaging 11.25 after the 1st test.
the fact that you have to use performances against b'desh to make him look test class says a lot about how poor he is.

Excuses Excuses, Lee averages 31.67, Gillespie 15.45, Mcgrath 25, Nitni 17, Hoggard 22. I guess all were injured, weren't they ? You can convince yourself in whatever ways you like, but dont put ridiculous claims.

is that why hes averaging in the 50s then?
and i couldnt care less what people like imran said, ive said that before too. they've been wrong in the past too. even the selectors have realised off late that hes isnt test class ATM, and they've kept him out of the side.

His average is 33.09, I guess you have a problem in recognizing numbers.

[Sanz]

not if you could read english. i said that he deserved 'SOME' of his hype. not all of it. because unlike pathan at least he was great at the domestic level.

Some or all, Hype is hype. Hick didn't justify the hype. Domestic performance means ZERO.

in which case you are not fit to watch international cricket. if you seriously think someone who has destroyed SA and australia on occasions, and had an extended period where he was averaging in the high 40s, and is easily one of the best ODI players we've ever had never looked like being the real thing, then you should just give up watching cricket.

If he was Destroying attacks, then why was he averaging in 40s, he should have been averaging in 70s. And you may be right about him one of the Better ODI players (ever heard of Fairbrother, Flintoff, Botham etc) England ever had, because that kinda tells us why England has never won a World Cup. If players like Hick are counted as your best ODI players, then god help this english team. And no Hick never looked like a real thing. His innings were FLUKES, just like he was a fluke.