How good COULD Pakistan be?

[shortpitched713]

Better than Gul? I think Gul's underrated, massive gun imo.

Gul is the best bowler in cricket history. However his recent form against Sri Lanka will have counted against him in the eyes of some.

Really though looking at it from an objective perspective its hard to say that Gul is even the best seamer. Both Asif and Sami could be reasonably placed above him, and Asif isn't really all that proven and Sami is inconsistent. Wouldn't be a far cry to rate Afridi over all of them, tbh.

 

[Perm]

Gul is the best bowler in cricket history. However his recent form against Sri Lanka will have counted against him in the eyes of some.

Really though looking at it from an objective perspective its hard to say that Gul is even the best seamer. Both Asif and Sami could be reasonably placed above him, and Asif isn't really all that proven and Sami is inconsistent. Wouldn't be a far cry to rate Afridi over all of them, tbh.

Asif>Gul>Sami IMO

 

[shortpitched713]

Asif>Gul>Sami IMO

Yes, eventually I believe that will be the case. But as of right now Gul's form is just short of shocking and Sami is doing very reasonable.

 

[Perm]

Yes, eventually I believe that will be the case. But as of right now Gul's form is just short of shocking and Sami is doing very reasonable.

Form vs class. I don't really feel like getting into it right now. Sami is a decent ODI bowler, nothing more and nothing less. Gul has the potential to be a good ODI and Test bowler, that's why I rank him higher, even considering his poor form.

 

[shortpitched713]

Form vs class. I don't really feel like getting into it right now. Sami is a decent ODI bowler, nothing more and nothing less. Gul has the potential to be a good ODI and Test bowler, that's why I rank him higher, even considering his poor form.

Gul has shown he has exponentially more ability to be successful in Tests than Sami, of that I have no argument. However I don't think hes really provided much evidence that he has the capability to be a particularly good ODI bowler. Sami has shown that, albeit inconsistently.

 

[Perm]

Gul has shown he has exponentially more ability to be successful in Tests than Sami, of that I have no argument. However I don't think hes really provided much evidence that he has the capability to be a particularly good ODI bowler. Sami has shown that, albeit inconsistently.

Aside from the fact that Gul has a better average and economy rate than Sami?

I agree that Mohammad Sami could be quite a good ODI bowler, but his inconsistencies are just too prominent for him to be a quality bowler. Gul hasn't had much of a career so far and has struggled against some of the better ODI teams (South Africa, India) but as time goes on, I think we'll start to see the true story.

 

[Richard]

Aside from the fact that Gul has a better average and economy rate than Sami?

Try his record with the substandard sides knocked-out.

 

[Xuhaib]

There is still a theory among some Pakistani experts that Gul is better then Asif, Asif is seen by some as a one trick pony who is lethal with the new ball especially if the pitch offers something but looses the plot and gets deflated if the batsman attacks him whilst Gul though not as lethal as Asif with the new ball but is not that far behind and then he can use his extra yard of pace and reverse swing as a plan B if the batsman attacks him.

 

[shortpitched713]

There is still a theory among some Pakistani experts that Gul is better then Asif, Asif is seen by some as a one trick pony who is lethal with the new ball especially if the pitch offers something but looses the plot and gets deflated if the batsman attacks him whilst Gul though not as lethal as Asif with the new ball but is not that far behind and then he can use his extra yard of pace and reverse swing as a plan B if the batsman attacks him.

Interesting theory, but Gul's occasional breakdowns in accuracy prevent him from being as effective of a bowler as Asif. True, he looks more deadly with the old ball, but both of the bowlers are capable of using reverse swing, and I don't really see any reason that Asif wouldn't be effective with the older ball as he mixes things up well with cutters and the like.

 

[Richard]

There is still a theory among some Pakistani experts that Gul is better then Asif, Asif is seen by some as a one trick pony who is lethal with the new ball especially if the pitch offers something but looses the plot and gets deflated if the batsman attacks him whilst Gul though not as lethal as Asif with the new ball but is not that far behind and then he can use his extra yard of pace and reverse swing as a plan B if the batsman attacks him.

People often say various bowlers are lesser when batsmen attack them, and very patronising it is too. I'd like to see someone successfully attack Asif first - most who've tried so far have paid for it.

 

[gunner]

strauss?
yuvraj?
he lost it when these 2 attacked him

on the topic of gul though,
he's not as potent as he used to be because of the stress fracture he got after getting 5 wickets vs india
his old action was much better but too much toll on his back

 

[Richard]

strauss?
yuvraj?
he lost it when these 2 attacked him

Certainly don't remember that.

 

[Xuhaib]

strauss?
yuvraj?
he lost it when these 2 attacked him

on the topic of gul though,
he's not as potent as he used to be because of the stress fracture he got after getting 5 wickets vs india
his old action was much better but too much toll on his back

Does anyone remember Boucher in the Cape Town test, Asif was all over him then Boucher finally decided to gamble which paid off as he took Asif for 27 in two overs and also recentley Thranga had a fair bit of success when he attacked Asif.

 

[Manee]

A bowler bowling length and moving it in seems liable to the ol' cross bat slog, but I doubt many batsman will try that.

 

[shortpitched713]

A bowler bowling length and moving it in seems liable to the ol' cross bat slog, but I doubt many batsman will try that.

What? Asif moves it both ways quite regularly and gets more bounce than most bowlers. I don't see how you could go for the slogging strategy against him without getting owned 9 times out of 10.

 

[Richard]

Ne neither. There's a reason batsmen don't go after good bowlers - it's because good batting isn't about trying to hit good balls.

 

[Pup Clarke]

it's because good batting isn't about trying to hit good balls.

Look at someone like a Brian Lara. He could manufacture good deliviries into runs by opening the face and hitting the gaps. He was especially renouned for this by we all now that Lara was an absolute genius and could do anything with a cricket bat.

 

[Richard]

But Tendulkar, who was generally more "orthodox" was a better and more consistent player.

Which, to me, suggests that playing good balls and looking to hit bad ones is the better way.

A top-class bowler would almost always have felt he had a chance against Lara, at certain stages in his career. That impression was rarely given with Tendulkar - between 1990 and 2002, you were almost always certain that your only way was to produce a special ball. Of course, he did play bad strokes, but much less often than Lara.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Richard, am I right in saying that Lara's vulnerability early on in his innings was done to his high backlift and tendencies to follow the ball that goes across him. He was also yorked a fair few times because of this extravagant high backlift.

 

[Richard]

Partly. Whereas Tendulkar was more orthodox in backlift, too.

But it was also down to the fact that he Drove, Pulled and Cut at things which Tendulkar wouldn't. This meant that, when he came off, he was unstoppable. But it also meant that he was more vulnerable than Tendulkar, especially when high-quality seam was in the offing.