Md. Wasim

[Pratters]

Yes, if they perform, they persist with them.

If they don't then they get the chop.

They dont keep changing players even though can change players during a bad run. Like Hayden wasnt exactly performing a few months ago. They could just chop and change him with the 'talent pool they had'. They believe he still has the ability to perform and persisted.

 

[vic_orthdox]

They dont keep changing players even though can change players during a bad run. Like Hayden wasnt exactly performing a few months ago. They could just chop and change him with the 'talent pool they had'. They believe he still has the ability to perform and persisted.

That's more to do with the fact that he has performed previously, as opposed to the position of he might perform because we believe he has the talent, despite not having really seen it yet.

 

[marc71178]

They dont keep changing players even though can change players during a bad run. Like Hayden wasnt exactly performing a few months ago. They could just chop and change him with the 'talent pool they had'. They believe he still has the ability to perform and persisted.

A completely different case.

Hayden averages over 50 and went through a slump.

A player starting his career with something like 1 run in 6 knocks doesn't equate to that

 

[Pratters]

A completely different case.

Hayden averages over 50 and went through a slump.

A player starting his career with something like 1 run in 6 knocks doesn't equate to that

What about Steve Waugh when he started off. Cetrainly Australia didnt have the depth as they have right now with rgards to talent pool but he didnt have a great time with the bouncers but proved himeslf later on.

You get my point any way.

 

[marc71178]

IIRC Steve Waugh was playing as a bit of an All Rounder in his early games - and he certainly had the bowling figures to justify retention.

 

[Pratters]

IIRC Steve Waugh was playing as a bit of an All Rounder in his early games - and he certainly had the bowling figures to justify retention.

We can go for specific players like Atapattu was discussed earlier but the point is you dont drop a player just based on statistics and just because there is a larger talent pool in a country.

If you select some one, you show faith in him. and drop him only if you are fairly sure the reasons you selected him arent good enough for him on an international level.

 

[marc71178]

If there is a large talent pool of players in a country, the last thing you do is keep someone who is underperforming when there are options worth trying.

 

[Pratters]

If there is a large talent pool of players in a country, the last thing you do is keep someone who is underperforming when there are options worth trying.

If some one plays a few matches and underperforms, he is better than an untried player as the tried player has got some experience at international level. If I think player A - tried and underperformed = player B untried, I will persist with player A.

In any case its been some time (2-3 days?) we have gone on on the issue so lets both give it a rest.

And just to clarify Marc, I have nothing against you and I wouldnt attack you as there are better things to do than attack people on the net. You and I are both wise enough to know that I am sure. So COMPLETELY get that out of your mind if it still persists.

Cheers.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry, but how is a player who has tried and failed better than a prospect of similar domestic form that hasn't been tried?

 

[Pratters]

Sorry, but how is a player who has tried and failed better than a prospect of similar domestic form that hasn't been tried?

Not failed - underperformed. both players supposedly have similar achievments. Player A has had the experience of playing in Australia before. So likely to do better there. Also shown promise with some scores of merit but due to his lack of experience, not delivered as expected.

Player B inexperienced.

So why not give it a shot with player A if I am convinced he is to deliver in future and has the adequate talent.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Not failed - underperformed. both players supposedly have similar achievments. Player A has had the experience of playing in Australia before. So likely to do better there. Also shown promise with some scores of merit but due to his lack of experience, not delivered as expected.

Player B inexperienced.

So why not give it a shot with player A if I am convinced he is to deliver in future and has the adequate talent.

There's a lot of refining and assumptions going along with this point. Your talking now about a very very specific circumstance, as opposed to before.

 

[Pratters]

There's a lot of refining and assumptions going along with this point. Your talking now about a very very specific circumstance, as opposed to before.

If you meant to this

If some one plays a few matches and underperforms, he is better than an untried player as the tried player has got some experience at international level. If I think player A - tried and underperformed = player B untried, I will persist with player A.

I have merely clarified the point I was making which was asked for by Marc in the previous comment of his.

As regards to Md. Wasim, we cant answer if the selectors considered him not good enough or merely dropped him because he didnt score up to expectations which may or may not mean he was not good enough.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not failed - underperformed. both players supposedly have similar achievments. Player A has had the experience of playing in Australia before. So likely to do better there. Also shown promise with some scores of merit but due to his lack of experience, not delivered as expected.

Player B inexperienced.

So why not give it a shot with player A if I am convinced he is to deliver in future and has the adequate talent.

What's to say Player B won't underperform though? It's a better shot than picking an underachiever.

 

[Shoaib]

Hameed, Umer, Farhat... just to name a few from the top of my head.

I am sure Salman Butt and Imran Nazir too have averages at least in 30's.

Taufiq Umar and Imran Nazir are good openers in test matches but both of them r crap in odis.Let us have a look at odi records of these 5 guys under discussion.
Name Mat I NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 Ct St
Imran Nazir 61 61 2 1392 105* 23.59 75.24 1 8 19 -
Imran Farhat 21 21 1 686 107 34.30 72.97 1 4 7 -
Taufeeq Umar 19 19 1 447 81* 24.83 57.45 - 3 9 -
Salman Butt 21 21 1 657 108* 32.85 72.67 2 2 5 -
Saleem Elahi 48 47 4 1579 135 36.72 71.31 4 9 10 -
Elahi has an average of 37 after playing around 50 matches and none of the others have played more than 25.Imran Nazir and Taufeeq umar,as u can see,r totally crap in odis but they can be good test openers though.The performance of Imran Farhat has been very poor against good sides and Salman but is too young to be a ray of hope for Pakistan.Yasir Hameed has never played a FC game as an opener,so,u can't expect to the job .But he can be a great player at no.3 in tests.Pakistan desperately need someone sort of Ijaz Ahmed at 3 as we've been trying our so called all rounders e.g Azhar Mahmood and lower middle batsmen like Misbah-Ul-Haq and Bazid Khan but all of them have proved to be crap.IMO,Hameed is the only man capable of playing at 3 and to do this job for atleast a decade to come.Pakistan need a solid opener who can take them through the 2007 WC and Elahi is the only man who can do it as he has a vast Fc +Domestic ods experience.And probably,he is the best domestic od performer.He could be a great addition to the team atleast till the end of 2007 WC.

 

[Beleg]

You are welcome to have him in your fantasy ODI team. ODIs are on their way to become nothing more than an absolute farce IMO. (Though I strongly doubt his merits are enough to warrant his inclusion and believe that further investigation will lay open the 'truth' behind his 'awesome' 37 average)

Selective stat picking does not a capable player make.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Taufiq Umar and Imran Farhat are good openers in test matches but both of them r crap in odis.Let us have a look at odi records of these 5 guys under discussion.
Name Mat I NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 Ct St
Imran Nazir 61 61 2 1392 105* 23.59 75.24 1 8 19 -
Imran Farhat 21 21 1 686 107 34.30 72.97 1 4 7 -
Taufeeq Umar 19 19 1 447 81* 24.83 57.45 - 3 9 -
Salman Butt 21 21 1 657 108* 32.85 72.67 2 2 5 -
Saleem Elahi 48 47 4 1579 135 36.72 71.31 4 9 10 -

Oh ok. I get it. So 36.72 is excellent, but 34.30 is crap. Pending confirmation I can safely disregard everything else you have to say on the matter.

 

[Pratters]

What's to say Player B won't underperform though? It's a better shot than picking an underachiever.

I would like to persist with a player I have selected if I believe he is going to finally show his talents and hae not given up on him yet.

 

[luckyeddie]

I would like to persist with a player I have selected if I believe he is going to finally show his talents and hae not given up on him yet.

Rikki?

 

[Pratters]

Rikki?

Yes or the vastly talented Agarkar

 

[Shoaib]

Oh ok. I get it. So 36.72 is excellent, but 34.30 is crap.

I apologise for calling 34.30 as crap.I wanted to mention Imran Nazir who has a very poor average of 23 but farhat came into my mind in confusion.Both are Imran so probably it would've made me make the mistake.