India Or Pakistan

[C_C]

so you think that someone has the potential to become an all time great even though hes never done anything in his entire career. thats a real jump isnt it?

No it isnt. Ofcourse you wouldnt be getting bent outta shape if you actually understood what the word potential means. I would ask you to go find a dictionary. Pontential for accomplishment and accomplishments are two totally different things.
Potential is evaluated based on attitude and skills in posession.

even though hes been fit and playing for quite a while now?
and really, i wonder how many bowlers in england arent capable of averaging 40 odd in test match cricke

Quiete a while now ? just a few months ago the ENG-A tour of IND was his comeback.
And averaging 40-odd ? given the past decade or so of english cricket, i would say not many.

so your saying that vaas isnt test class then? you have to remember that theres a major difference between being test class and not playing because there are better players in the side. one could argue that bell is test class, but because of the competition he probably wont make the test side.

Vaas is test class NOW. has been for a while. Wasnt when he debuted. If it was a more competitive team he was playing for, he most likely would've been shelved had he not improved-which he did.

no i certainly dont, i expect him to average 40 throughout his career(Without improvement), unless he constantly comes across green wickets, something that im extremely doubtful about in this day and age

I am sorry to say then- you know diddly squat about bowling. Best not comment on something you are clueless about. Allright ?
I figure people like Bruce Reid, Akram,Imran,Kapil, etc. know a few things about potential greats ....especially considering that Imran has a reputation for spotting talent outta the blue.

[quote

is that why his average has actually gone up rather than down since his first few tests?[/quote]

irrelevant really.
People adapt around you. If you dont improve, you get overcome. True for everyone. What the average today or yesterday was irrelevant because both sides are adapting and changing. In physics terms, you are trying to apply an inertial frame of reference to a non inertial situation.
The ones who have failed to adapt have been discarded. thats a fact, with the exception of cases when there was no one better available.

equivalent performance???
do you actually think that anyone and everyone who averages 40 odd is going to become an all time great simply because another all time great did so at an older age?

No what it means, for the umpteenth time, is that for newbies like Irfan, Balaji, Clarke, etc. statistics are irrelevant as they do not have enough sample points. Therefore, at THIS stage of Irfan's career, quoting the average is superflous and irrelevant.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by C_C

No it isnt. Ofcourse you wouldnt be getting bent outta shape if you actually understood what the word potential means. I would ask you to go find a dictionary. Pontential for accomplishment and accomplishments are two totally different things.
Potential is evaluated based on attitude and skills in posession.

read my post, i said that he has the potential to become a very good bowler, but only it would be ridiculous to say that hes going to become an all time great bowler when hes never ever had any sort of great series in test matches. players can only look to become all time greats, when they've accomplished something in their careers thus far, pathan has never done anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by C_C

Quiete a while now ? just a few months ago the ENG-A tour of IND was his comeback..

which was about a year ago now . he did however get unfit shortly after the series vs NZ last summer.

Originally Posted by C_C

And averaging 40-odd ? given the past decade or so of english cricket, i would say not many.

yes the likes of darren gough, andy caddick, angus fraser, craig white, dominic cork all averaged over 40 didnt they?

Originally Posted by C_C

Vaas is test class NOW. has been for a while. Wasnt when he debuted. If it was a more competitive team he was playing for, he most likely would've been shelved had he not improved-which he did..

again i ask you the same question, if he wasnt test class, how in the world was he averaging under 25 after his first 18 tests?

Originally Posted by C_C

I am sorry to say then- you know diddly squat about bowling. Best not comment on something you are clueless about. Allright ?
I figure people like Bruce Reid, Akram,Imran,Kapil, etc. know a few things about potential greats ....especially considering that Imran has a reputation for spotting talent outta the blue..

i like it when novices like you tell me i know nothing about bowling. i know far more about anything post 92 than you can ever dream off.
you can go ahead and talk all the squat you want about how much potential he has,ive seen bowlers like him come and go.

Originally Posted by C_C

irrelevant really.
People adapt around you. If you dont improve, you get overcome. True for everyone. What the average today or yesterday was irrelevant because both sides are adapting and changing. In physics terms, you are trying to apply an inertial frame of reference to a non inertial situation.
The ones who have failed to adapt have been discarded. thats a fact, with the exception of cases when there was no one better available.

its not irrelevant realy, and i can assure you that he needs to make major improvements if he wants to succeed, not just minor ones.

Originally Posted by C_C

No what it means, for the umpteenth time, is that for newbies like Irfan, Balaji, Clarke, etc. statistics are irrelevant as they do not have enough sample points. Therefore, at THIS stage of Irfan's career, quoting the average is superflous and irrelevant.

how is it irrelevant. averages are never irrelevant, they always have say. they are not the be all and end all though. in pathans case as ive said about a billion times, i rate him from what i see, and from what ive seen so far i think hes simply overhyped when hes not done anything special, ever.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by C_C

And aye, Pathan would get in the ENG side as well....

Replacing who?

[tooextracool]

jones apparently because he gets injured too often.

[GladiatrsInBlue]

I have news for Pathan's critics, recently Steve Bucknor (WI umpire) have compaed Pathan to Glen McGrath!!!!!


I think Pathan is the best upcomming pacer in the world, and in two years time the guy would be the top pacer in the world.

[C_C]

read my post, i said that he has the potential to become a very good bowler, but only it would be ridiculous to say that hes going to become an all time great bowler when hes never ever had any sort of great series in test matches. players can only look to become all time greats, when they've accomplished something in their careers thus far, pathan has never done anything of the sort.

This is going round in circles.
I disagree that inorder to be classified as a potential great,you need to have done somehting worthwhile.... worthwhile means you are moving towards it and each success brings you closer to greatness and further from the 'potential great' tag.
What one looks for is bowling acumen(and Pathan is remarkably mature for his age) and the arsenal. Pathan has a deadly ball that comes back into the righthanders, an awesome yorker , great bouncer and a very steady line and length.He also moves the ball very well. He needs to develop the ball that leaves the right hander some more. That constitutes as a POTENTIAL to greatness......whether he ends up with a 20.50 average or 35 average is irrelevant. All that would mean is whether he has fulfilled his potential or not.

which was about a year ago now . he did however get unfit shortly after the series vs NZ last summer.

Aye. Year ago..with injury in between that. That is a nothing record.

yes the likes of darren gough, andy caddick, angus fraser, craig white, dominic cork all averaged over 40 didnt they?

Devon Malcolm, Ashley Giles, Phil Tufnell, Eddie Hemmings,Flintoff,Chris Lewis,John Embury,Derek Pringle,Craig White (who averages 37+), Robert Croft, etc etc etc.

Within these names, they made up the bulk of the 3rd/4th bowler for England over the last 20-odd years. Pathan could replace either one of those.

again i ask you the same question, if he wasnt test class, how in the world was he averaging under 25 after his first 18 tests?

That is NOT what i am saying. What i am saying is relative skills-wise, bowlers are ALMOST ALWAYS a better bowler as time goes on than near the start of their careers, because they have to adapt continously to the batsmen.
You are trying to apply erroneous reasoning here- the batsmen adapt too and so do the bowlers and its a dynamic system. Not just the batsmen keeping stagnant and the bowler improving/deteriorating.
Like i said, ask any bowler- they develop newer deliveries and improve their line and length as time goes on and almost all of em are better bowlers 10 years down the road.

i like it when novices like you tell me i know nothing about bowling. i know far more about anything post 92 than you can ever dream off.
you can go ahead and talk all the squat you want about how much potential he has,ive seen bowlers like him come and go.

LOL. Look, if you wanna be an idiot, you can try it with someone else. I got no time for idiotic statements like you know more about post 92 than i can ever dream of and blahblah, since you DONT KNOW how much i know or not.
All i would say is if you are ever in my neighbourhood or i am in yours, pad up and face me and then we will see who will STFU.

And like i said, dont care who you are or what you are- unless you are Jeff Trueman, i dont think there is any bowler alive in England who knows about pace bowling as much as Imran,Waqar or Wasim. So, in short, STFU.

its not irrelevant realy, and i can assure you that he needs to make major improvements if he wants to succeed, not just minor ones.

Ofcourse he does. However, your example and automatic conclusion that if a bowler has better stats early on in his career than later on, he is a more potent bowler early on is erroneous.
Like i said, you in physics terms, you are applying an inertial frame of reference to a non-inertial frame.

how is it irrelevant. averages are never irrelevant, they always have say. they are not the be all and end all though. in pathans case as ive said about a billion times, i rate him from what i see, and from what ive seen so far i think hes simply overhyped when hes not done anything special, ever.

It *IS* irrelevant if one doesnt haev enough sample points. That is the first rule of statistical analysis. Therefore, averages are irrelevant when it comes to newbies with a dozen or so matches experience.
I rate him from what i see too..and i see more potential in him than any newbie bowler i've seen for a while.

jones apparently because he gets injured too often.

Right now- it would be Jones. He is fitter and a more incisive bowler than Jones is.
But give him 5 years and he will replace any bowler in the English lineup that are currently playing..on current form.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by GladiatrsInBlue

I think Pathan is the best upcomming pacer in the world, and in two years time the guy would be the top pacer in the world.

In 2 years time, a lot of the current top pacemen will still be around.

Can't see them all having massive slumps at the same time.

[GladiatrsInBlue]

Originally Posted by marc71178

In 2 years time, a lot of the current top pacemen will still be around.

Can't see them all having massive slumps at the same time.

McGrath will be gone, Jason,Pollock,Vaas will most probably be past their best.

And among all the young pacers, Pathan have the maximum chances of emerging out as the real champ coz of his potential and positive attitude.

[C_C]

In 2 years time, a lot of the current top pacemen will still be around.

Can't see them all having massive slumps at the same time.

McGrath and Gillespie apart, all the other pacers operating today can be overhauled by someone who is a newbie now- there isnt that much class really. Pollock is a shadow of his former self, Flintoff is good but not great, Harmison is unproven against good batting lineup(i am inclined to call him a minnow-basher but will hold off till the Ashes), ntini is inconsistent, Akhtar is more injured than not, Bond is uncertain and that leaves practically nobody.

And in 2 years, McGrath would likely be gone and Gillespie might maintain his high standing though Gillespie has rarely done well being the main bowler in the side- he has always excelled in the company of McGrath and Warne but not much when either or both of them, particularly McGrath, is missing.

[Choora]

Originally Posted by GladiatrsInBlue

And among all the young pacers, Pathan have the maximum chances of emerging out as the real champ coz of his potential and positive attitude.

There is one in Steve Harmison (though not in his best form lately) who might have a great chance to become the top bowler by the time you mentioned.

[C_C]

Originally Posted by Choora

There is one in Steve Harmison (though not in his best form lately) who might have a great chance to become the top bowler by the time you mentioned.

Anything is possible...but Steve has to prove that he has what it takes against good batting lineups and perform away from home...his whining about homesickness in RSA was embarassing.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by C_C

This is going round in circles.
I disagree that inorder to be classified as a potential great,you need to have done somehting worthwhile.... worthwhile means you are moving towards it and each success brings you closer to greatness and further from the 'potential great' tag.

no it doesnt, if you havent accomplished anything in your career and have been by and large a failure, you cant be a potential all time great, simple as that.

Originally Posted by C_C

What one looks for is bowling acumen(and Pathan is remarkably mature for his age) and the arsenal. Pathan has a deadly ball that comes back into the righthanders, an awesome yorker , great bouncer and a very steady line and length.He also moves the ball very well. He needs to develop the ball that leaves the right hander some more. That constitutes as a POTENTIAL to greatness......whether he ends up with a 20.50 average or 35 average is irrelevant. All that would mean is whether he has fulfilled his potential or not..

no its not potential to greatness, its potential to become something good. you cannot become a great bowler bowling at the pace that he does, how long is it going to take you to realise that he clearly doesnt have everything to be a successful pace bowler, otherwise hed be looking a lot better than the distincly average pace bowler hes looked thus far.

Originally Posted by C_C

Aye. Year ago..with injury in between that. That is a nothing record..

so whats your point? you dont drop a better bowler simply because he has the tendency to get injured, even though he seems to be as fit as hes ever been right now.

Originally Posted by C_C

Devon Malcolm, Ashley Giles, Phil Tufnell, Eddie Hemmings,Flintoff,Chris Lewis,John Embury,Derek Pringle,Craig White (who averages 37+), Robert Croft, etc etc etc.
Within these names, they made up the bulk of the 3rd/4th bowler for England over the last 20-odd years. Pathan could replace either one of those.

wow he could displace some of the most rubbish bowlers of the decade, give him a medal. no surprise either that nearly 3/4 of those bowlers are spin bowlers, as though that makes a difference to your claim. the spin bowlers were selected to provide variety, not because there wasnt a pace bowler with a better average. extremely interesting that you brought up craig white too, who could do everything that pathan can and yet bowl faster and more accurately in his prime.

Originally Posted by C_C

That is NOT what i am saying. What i am saying is relative skills-wise, bowlers are ALMOST ALWAYS a better bowler as time goes on than near the start of their careers, because they have to adapt continously to the batsmen.
You are trying to apply erroneous reasoning here- the batsmen adapt too and so do the bowlers and its a dynamic system. Not just the batsmen keeping stagnant and the bowler improving/deteriorating.
Like i said, ask any bowler- they develop newer deliveries and improve their line and length as time goes on and almost all of em are better bowlers 10 years down the road.

no its not, not every bowler improves throughout their career, some stay stagnant some get worse, some get better. thats the way the game of cricket works, vaas is an ideal example of someone who hasnt really improved much since the start of his career in tests.

Originally Posted by C_C

LOL. Look, if you wanna be an idiot, you can try it with someone else. I got no time for idiotic statements like you know more about post 92 than i can ever dream of and blahblah, since you DONT KNOW how much i know or not.
All i would say is if you are ever in my neighbourhood or i am in yours, pad up and face me and then we will see who will STFU.
And like i said, dont care who you are or what you are- unless you are Jeff Trueman, i dont think there is any bowler alive in England who knows about pace bowling as much as Imran,Waqar or Wasim. So, in short, STFU.

yes well done with the insults, they make you look so much more knowledgeable about cricket they really do. you really havent done yourself much justice, ive read some of your posts on these forums and thought to myself, thats barely even worth replying too, largely because its so filled with erroneous b/s that id really only be wasting my time responding to most of them.

Originally Posted by C_C

Ofcourse he does. However, your example and automatic conclusion that if a bowler has better stats early on in his career than later on, he is a more potent bowler early on is erroneous.
Like i said, you in physics terms, you are applying an inertial frame of reference to a non-inertial frame.

rubbish my entire point is that jumping to the conclusion that someone has the potential to become an all time great, is extremely premature. i certainly dont rely solely on stats as ive said soo soo many times, and its really quite obvious from a various number of my posts. what is however erroneous is your theory that every bowler will improve, so much so infact that they can go from being mediocre bowlers to all time greats.

Originally Posted by C_C

It *IS* irrelevant if one doesnt haev enough sample points. That is the first rule of statistical analysis. Therefore, averages are irrelevant when it comes to newbies with a dozen or so matches experience.
I rate him from what i see too..and i see more potential in him than any newbie bowler i've seen for a while.

you rate him on what exactly, the fact that he can swing the ball? like it or not, you have to show via performance that you are good enough, not via potential. you have to get it through your head, he doesnt have the required accuracy or the required pace to succeed at the test match level right now, for him to succeed he needs to improve in both areas. and really there have been a number of bowlers who've had similar problems. im really surprised for someone who considers himself to know so much about the game, that you dont actually rate craig white, and yet you do think that pathan has the potential to be an all time great, even though craig white could do things with the ball that pathan can clearly not do.

Originally Posted by C_C

Right now- it would be Jones. He is fitter and a more incisive bowler than Jones is.
But give him 5 years and he will replace any bowler in the English lineup that are currently playing..on current form.

further reason why he is overhyped.

[C_C]

no it doesnt, if you havent accomplished anything in your career and have been by and large a failure, you cant be a potential all time great, simple as that.

Yes you can. Potential is precisely that- POTENTIAL for achievement. NOT 'have achieved already'.
Potential this or potential that is just potential- the ABILITY exhibited that CAN make you a success...not success itself.

no its not potential to greatness, its potential to become something good. you cannot become a great bowler bowling at the pace that he does, how long is it going to take you to realise that he clearly doesnt have everything to be a successful pace bowler, otherwise hed be looking a lot better than the distincly average pace bowler hes looked thus far.

Dont talk shyte.
Hadlee became a great when he bowled in low-mid 80s and McGrath(even though he is capable of ratcheting it up to high 80s/low 90s) bowls mostly at low-mid 80s zone...Irfan is improving his pace and his normal operational pace is mid 80s-84-86mph range.
And he doesnt look like a distinctly average pace bowler...so far he is going the Marshall/Imran way- working on L&L before(if) adding pace.

so whats your point? you dont drop a better bowler simply because he has the tendency to get injured, even though he seems to be as fit as hes ever been right now.

he isnt a better bowler than Pathan currently. Not a chance in hell.
A bowler who gets bashed around by a state side from IND and has done nothing in the international arena(even less than Pathan recently) is a nothing bowler accomplishment-wise.

wow he could displace some of the most rubbish bowlers of the decade, give him a medal. no surprise either that nearly 3/4 of those bowlers are spin bowlers, as though that makes a difference to your claim. the spin bowlers were selected to provide variety, not because there wasnt a pace bowler with a better average. extremely interesting that you brought up craig white too, who could do everything that pathan can and yet bowl faster and more accurately in his prime.

irrelevant. I said Pathan could feature in the ENG side over the past decade or more...and you disputed it...those bowlers i mentioned for the large part made up the 3rd/4th bowler spot for ENG and he is exchangable with any oen of em...and aye... Tufnell and all played to add quality but every ENG spin bowler since Underwood is a rubbish bowler...
As per White goes- he was overall poor... at his best he was better than Pathan but Pathan hasnt reached his best yet- says a lot when you are averaging near 40 despite a reasonable run through the years.

no its not, not every bowler improves throughout their career, some stay stagnant some get worse, some get better. thats the way the game of cricket works, vaas is an ideal example of someone who hasnt really improved much since the start of his career in tests.

Like i said, you know diddly squat about bowling if you think that and you can quote me on that.
Almost EVERY bowler learns new tricks as time goes and all this 'improves/stagnates/gets worse' is RELATIVE TO HOW THE BATSMEN ARE ADAPTING.
Not empirical. Empirically, almost every bowler learns new tricks as time goes.

yes well done with the insults, they make you look so much more knowledgeable about cricket they really do. you really havent done yourself much justice, ive read some of your posts on these forums and thought to myself, thats barely even worth replying too, largely because its so filled with erroneous b/s that id really only be wasting my time responding to most of them.

Look- any idiot can talk. If you think my arguments(most of which are scientifically/logically backed up) are crap, i would ask you to either prove it or STFU. Clear ? dont talk the talk. Walk the walk like others do who think my arguments may be flawed.

rubbish my entire point is that jumping to the conclusion that someone has the potential to become an all time great, is extremely premature. i certainly dont rely solely on stats as ive said soo soo many times, and its really quite obvious from a various number of my posts. what is however erroneous is your theory that every bowler will improve, so much so infact that they can go from being mediocre bowlers to all time greats.

Emprically, almost every single bowler improves... some very little, some quiete a lot and some somewhat. The whole 'improved/degressed/stagnant' comes from RELATIVE to the BATSMEN who are improving as well. Almost every single bowler has an extra delivery 5 years since test debut and a better/equal command over L&L.

you rate him on what exactly, the fact that he can swing the ball? like it or not, you have to show via performance that you are good enough, not via potential.

Like i said, you seem to be confused yourself. If someone has performance to show it, he is no longer a POTENTIAL GREAT...POTENTIAL is 'what CAN achieve'...not 'what ALREADY achieved'...with each passing achievement, he is moving away from the potential tag.
I rate him because at his age, he has excellent swing, control, a deadly yorker, one that comes in to the righthander, an excellent bouncer and intelligence.

further reason why he is overhyped.

I would ask you to say that to Imran,Waqar,Wasim, Reid and Kapil.

you have to get it through your head, he doesnt have the required accuracy or the required pace to succeed at the test match level right now, for him to succeed he needs to improve in both areas. and really there have been a number of bowlers who've had similar problems. im really surprised for someone who considers himself to know so much about the game, that you dont actually rate craig white, and yet you do think that pathan has the potential to be an all time great, even though craig white could do things with the ball that pathan can clearly not do.

He has the required accuracy- OZ apart he is well below 3rpo in Tests and not many bowlers are in recent times. Pace ? his regular pace is 84-86mph which is enough..That is Pollock-McGrath-Hadlee-Kapil-Botham pace.

And White, at best, was an ordinary bowler- that is being very generous mind you. White had variety but poor control and way too injury-prone. I've seen White considerably and apart from a potent outswinger and a tad better movement before pitching, Pathan is better than White ALREADY in almost every other department- better inswinger(to righties), bouncer, yorker and more consistent with L&L.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by C_C

Yes you can. Potential is precisely that- POTENTIAL for achievement. NOT 'have achieved already'.
Potential this or potential that is just potential- the ABILITY exhibited that CAN make you a success...not success itself.

so basically any bowler to ever play cricket has had the potential to become an all time great then? given that it doesnt require any amount of performance as a qualification?
ridiculous.

Originally Posted by C_C

Dont talk shyte.
Hadlee became a great when he bowled in low-mid 80s and McGrath(even though he is capable of ratcheting it up to high 80s/low 90s) bowls mostly at low-mid 80s zone...Irfan is improving his pace and his normal operational pace is mid 80s-84-86mph range.
And he doesnt look like a distinctly average pace bowler...so far he is going the Marshall/Imran way- working on L&L before(if) adding pace.

yes well done, perhaps if youd watch more cricket you might realise that pathan just touches 80-81 mph and he certainly doesnt have the height of a glenn mcgrath.

Originally Posted by C_C

he isnt a better bowler than Pathan currently. Not a chance in hell.
A bowler who gets bashed around by a state side from IND and has done nothing in the international arena(even less than Pathan recently) is a nothing bowler accomplishment-wise.

so its just magic then that he has a much better bowling avgand more match winning performances? you really dont watch much cricket do you?

Originally Posted by C_C

irrelevant. I said Pathan could feature in the ENG side over the past decade or more...and you disputed it...those bowlers i mentioned for the large part made up the 3rd/4th bowler spot for ENG and he is exchangable with any oen of em...and aye... Tufnell and all played to add quality but every ENG spin bowler since Underwood is a rubbish bowler...

you really have problems reading dont you? there were fast bowlers in england who had better bowling averages than tufnell,croft and the like, but the fact is that the spin bowlers were picked simply because they were spin bowlers, and pathan is certainly not a spin bowler.
and i dont really see how pathan making it into an england side of the 90s(which was easily one of the worst sides around at the time) is supposed to prove something.

Originally Posted by C_C

As per White goes- he was overall poor... at his best he was better than Pathan but Pathan hasnt reached his best yet- says a lot when you are averaging near 40 despite a reasonable run through the years.

keep on with the brilliant knowledge of cricket, have you heard of 'injury'?

Originally Posted by C_C

Like i said, you know diddly squat about bowling if you think that and you can quote me on that.
Almost EVERY bowler learns new tricks as time goes and all this 'improves/stagnates/gets worse' is RELATIVE TO HOW THE BATSMEN ARE ADAPTING.
Not empirical. Empirically, almost every bowler learns new tricks as time goes.

so your saying that bowlers like sami have improved over the years? bowlers like saqlain mushtaq got better in tests you mean? you really have some nerve accusing me of not knowing anything about bowling when you make comments like those.

Originally Posted by C_C

Look- any idiot can talk..

really? and here i am thinking that idiots couldnt talk...

Originally Posted by C_C

If you think my arguments(most of which are scientifically/logically backed up) are crap, i would ask you to either prove it or STFU. Clear ? dont talk the talk. Walk the walk like others do who think my arguments may be flawed.

yes you've backed up pathan has the potential to be an all time great so brilliantly havent you? you dont have a single fact to back it up. and some of your comments such as pathan has a better inswinger, yorker and bouncer than white really are making you look a tad foolish.

Originally Posted by C_C

Emprically, almost every single bowler improves... some very little, some quiete a lot and some somewhat. The whole 'improved/degressed/stagnant' comes from RELATIVE to the BATSMEN who are improving as well. Almost every single bowler has an extra delivery 5 years since test debut and a better/equal command over L&L.

except that little improvement counts for nothing, and it barely even makes a difference in terms of performance. and as ive said time and time again there are so many bowlers who didnt improve from debut its simply insane.

Originally Posted by C_C

Like i said, you seem to be confused yourself. If someone has performance to show it, he is no longer a POTENTIAL GREAT...POTENTIAL is 'what CAN achieve'...not 'what ALREADY achieved'...with each passing achievement, he is moving away from the potential tag.
I rate him because at his age, he has excellent swing, control, a deadly yorker, one that comes in to the righthander, an excellent bouncer and intelligence.

you really have no clue whats going on do you? you dont become an all time great with one good performance, but that one good performance would provide evidence that you can be a match winner. pathan has shown no evidence of that off yet. hence he can only be said that he has the potential to be a good player, certainly unless he starts to put in a few good performances(AGAIN I STRESS THAT EVEN AFTER THOSE GOOD PERFORMANCES HE WOULDNT BE AN ALL TIME GREAT OR EVEN A PROVEN TEST PLAYER), but it would go a long way to saying that he can be an all time great. and i really have no idea what the hell you are talking about with pathan and his excellent control, almost everyone has criticised him for his accuracy. and an excellent bouncer, you really must be dreaming. if he had all of the stuff you just mentioned hed already be performing, instead of being mediocre.

Originally Posted by C_C

I would ask you to say that to Imran,Waqar,Wasim, Reid and Kapil.

even though they are proven great players(bar reid)?
and it would be logical to say that reid had potential to be an all time great because he actually did something at the international level!

Originally Posted by C_C

He has the required accuracy- OZ apart he is well below 3rpo in Tests and not many bowlers are in recent times. Pace ? his regular pace is 84-86mph which is enough..That is Pollock-McGrath-Hadlee-Kapil-Botham pace.

because ER really indicates whether a person is accurate or not doesnt it? one could easily say that zaheer khan bowled far more accurately and better than pathan did in the test against pakistan, yet go figure who came out with the better ER.

Originally Posted by C_C

And White, at best, was an ordinary bowler- that is being very generous mind you. White had variety but poor control and way too injury-prone. I've seen White considerably and apart from a potent outswinger and a tad better movement before pitching, Pathan is better than White ALREADY in almost every other department- better inswinger(to righties), bouncer, yorker and more consistent with L&L.

you really are a joke arent you? after claiming to know so much abt cricket you come up with comments like this?
craig white was not only capable of swinging it both ways, he was also capable of cutting the ball, something that pathan hasnt shown of yet, and he could reverse swing it with far more control than pathan can too. apparently pathan has everything - control, good bouncer, swings it, good yorker, intelligence,decent pace, yet hes been failing in his career thus far

[C_C]

so basically any bowler to ever play cricket has had the potential to become an all time great then? given that it doesnt require any amount of performance as a qualification?
ridiculous.

If the have the proper tools and attitude, then yes they do- which most dont.
Performance is not a criteria for potential because those two are fundamentally different things and inversely related- more the performance, less the 'potential' factor.
DUH!

yes well done, perhaps if youd watch more cricket you might realise that pathan just touches 80-81 mph and he certainly doesnt have the height of a glenn mcgrath.

He has the height of Kapil, Pollock and is barely an inch or two shorter than Hadlee.
And if YOU watch more cricket, you will realise that your assertion is ridiculous.
In his debut match in OZ, Pathan's fastest was 83-ish mph with average of 81mph.
During PAK series he averaged 84ish with top delivery in the 87-88mph range.
During first test against AUS, he averaged 85-86mph and his fastest delivery was 144.8kph which is just a shade under 90mph.
During the bangladesh series his average speed in the first test was 85mph with top speed of 88mph...2nd test he was 84mph average and 87mph highest....
You are obviously commenting based on the last test with PAK where he struggled to reach 80mph, owing to injury ( he was injured right before the series and hasnt bowled competitively for a whole).

So get your facts straight.

so its just magic then that he has a much better bowling avgand more match winning performances? you really dont watch much cricket do you?

Much better average ?

Pathan minus BD is 42-ish( i forget-its up in this thread). White is 37+...oh yes thats much better.sheesh.
More matchwinning performances ? debatable but well duh... onehas 3x the experience than other...who do you think has more matchwinning performances ? conversely, White has more pathetic displays than Pathan as well.

you really have problems reading dont you? there were fast bowlers in england who had better bowling averages than tufnell,croft and the like, but the fact is that the spin bowlers were picked simply because they were spin bowlers, and pathan is certainly not a spin bowler.
and i dont really see how pathan making it into an england side of the 90s(which was easily one of the worst sides around at the time) is supposed to prove something.

Really ? who ? Fraser,Caddick,Gough and sporadically Headley apart, the 3rd/4th spot was usually a bastion of the bowlers i named above. And through the 90s, ENG played more tests without Fraser-Caddick-Gough than other way around...that automatically opens up one place for consideration with or without spinner.
And i made a passing observation. If you think it doesnt prove anything, why the feck are you arguing ?

keep on with the brilliant knowledge of cricket, have you heard of 'injury'?

Yes Injury played a crucial part but even when playing, white was mostly off color and ordinary.

so your saying that bowlers like sami have improved over the years? bowlers like saqlain mushtaq got better in tests you mean? you really have some nerve accusing me of not knowing anything about bowling when you make comments like those.

I said almost every bowler- Saqlain is a distinct oddity as in he has degressed over the few years but even then, Saqlain was a MUCH better bowler a couple of seasons INTO international cricket than at the time of his debut.. But yes, Sami has added new balls to his delivery since he made debut- during his debut he could barely move the ball and had no inswinger to speak of....now he still bowls shyte but he has an inswinger and an outswinger.

yes you've backed up pathan has the potential to be an all time great so brilliantly havent you? you dont have a single fact to back it up. and some of your comments such as pathan has a better inswinger, yorker and bouncer than white really are making you look a tad foolish.

I've said WHY i consider Pathan to be better- since you dont have a clue about the concept of POTENTIAL, its like trying to make a donkey understand calculus- pointless and futile.
And yes, Pathan has better inswinger, yorker and bouncer than White. Particularly the inswinger(to the righties) and yorker.

As far as i see, you have some nerve disputing the opinions of Imran,Waqar,Wasim,Kapil and Reid to Pathan's POTENTIAL...

except that little improvement counts for nothing, and it barely even makes a difference in terms of performance. and as ive said time and time again there are so many bowlers who didnt improve from debut its simply insane.

changing the tune are we ?

i said that almot every bowler improves since debut empirically while relatively they may be going backwards/forwards/staying stagnant...
But almost every bowler is empirically better since debut than previous.

even though they are proven great players(bar reid)?
and it would be logical to say that reid had potential to be an all time great because he actually did something at the international level!

?
You make no sense there...yes they are proven great players and some of them are excellent at identifying talent- and you are contradicting what they are saying.

And yes, Reid was a potential great but that has nothing to do with what he did/didnt accomplish at the international level- achievements do not define the posession of potential. All it means is whether you have fulfilled or wasted or exceeded your potential.

you really have no clue whats going on do you? you dont become an all time great with one good performance, but that one good performance would provide evidence that you can be a match winner. pathan has shown no evidence of that off yet. hence he can only be said that he has the potential to be a good player, certainly unless he starts to put in a few good performances(AGAIN I STRESS THAT EVEN AFTER THOSE GOOD PERFORMANCES HE WOULDNT BE AN ALL TIME GREAT OR EVEN A PROVEN TEST PLAYER), but it would go a long way to saying that he can be an all time great. and i really have no idea what the hell you are talking about with pathan and his excellent control, almost everyone has criticised him for his accuracy. and an excellent bouncer, you really must be dreaming. if he had all of the stuff you just mentioned hed already be performing, instead of being mediocre.

Au contraire. You are the one clueless here, since you dont even know the definition of potential. To be considered a potential great, you need to posess the tools that other greats did at same time or tools you need to be great. Pathan clearly has that. Pathan has excellent control for his level of experience and age- control is something you get with dollops of practice and like i said- check his figures- OZ apart, he has less than 3rpo against almost every opposition in tests... especially in this era when most bowlers get clobbered for over 3rpo. And yes..Pathan has a gem of a bouncer- he shook up inzy in PAK and the delivery he bowled to get Razzaq in PAK was a topclass bouncer.

because ER really indicates whether a person is accurate or not doesnt it? one could easily say that zaheer khan bowled far more accurately and better than pathan did in the test against pakistan, yet go figure who came out with the better ER.

by and large, ER is the biggest indicator to accuracy. Ofcourse, to an extent it depends on the aggressiveness of the batting team.
And Zaheer on the whole DID NOT bowl as accurately as Pathan did...his first spell was very accurate but his second and third spell were codswallop in terms of accuracy.

you really are a joke arent you? after claiming to know so much abt cricket you come up with comments like this?
craig white was not only capable of swinging it both ways, he was also capable of cutting the ball, something that pathan hasnt shown of yet, and he could reverse swing it with far more control than pathan can too.

reverse ?
craig white ?
That is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. I am yet to see an english bowler get controlled and consistent reverse swing apart from Gough-that too he does sporadically.
And White could swing it but he swung it less but Pathan has a much better inswinger than White.

apparently pathan has everything - control, good bouncer, swings it, good yorker, intelligence,decent pace, yet hes been failing in his career thus far

He has some tools that most great pacers have/had. Ofcourse he isnt a finished product yet....but you like i said a few times before, know diddly squat about bowling if you equate inswing,bouncer,control and yorker to 'everything'.