*Official* South Africa in Pakistan Thread

[Yousuf_Youhana]

Pakistan in CHARGE!! Shabbir is a great talent for Pakistan! 4 wickets, and 2 for Razzaq, Danish Kaneria is just pure CLASS all the way with his leg spin..gr8 spin bowler..

on the Shoaib Ban Case, when I saw the video I could lip read shoaib and he said deleted - all came out as stars

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Lol Gibbs out for 98. Hehe.

OIT! Thats...just unlucky it was damn good knock.

 

[Mr. P]

OIT! Thats...just unlucky it was damn good knock.

You can't say you weren't laughing at least a little bit. Like, a mild chuckle?:saint:

 

[Mr. P]

Anyway, Pakistan looking good. Taufeeq Umar (45) and Imran Farhat (51) looking good. The pakistanis are now 0/97.

 

[luckyeddie]

Pakistan going exceptionally well - 150-1 at present - and Mr Greedy to come in next.

 

[Yousuf_Youhana]

pak are in the 220's with Mr. Greedy on 14 (45) and congratulate Imran Farhat on his first Test Century! 113 (199)

 

[gibbsnsmith]

You can't say you weren't laughing at least a little bit. Like, a mild chuckle?:saint:

not at all,


*hopes Gibbs gets 385 somehow in the next inning*

 

[luckyeddie]

pak are in the 220's with Mr. Greedy on 14 (45) and congratulate Imran Farhat on his first Test Century! 113 (199)

Funny how something as innocent as that (saying Mr. Greedy) can lead to something else.

See Devil Ducky's weekly column, front page

 

[Bouncer]

well pakistan seems to have lost the initiative as i thought....i did not think SA are going to be easy pill to swallow...at lunch Pak have lead of 51 with 2 wickets in hand.

 

[luckyeddie]

Pollock 6-78. Top bowling stats (although technically he might have bowled a load of superb deliveries which failed to get wickets then profited from some surprise bad balls which the batsmen should have put away for four but didn't. That, of course, would make it a 'poor bowling performance')

 

[Mr. P]

Well well, SA off to a very good start in their second innings. They are currently at 93/1.

 

[Richard]

Well well, SA off to a very good start in their second innings. They are currently at 93/1.

Can Graeme finally get going?

 

[Richard]

Pollock 6-78. Top bowling stats (although technically he might have bowled a load of superb deliveries which failed to get wickets then profited from some surprise bad balls which the batsmen should have put away for four but didn't. That, of course, would make it a 'poor bowling performance')

Not neccesarily a poor performance.
Just one that wasn't as good as the stats made it seem.
I will wait and see, but it's most likely that he bowled mostly good balls (no superb balls, not many bad ones) and most of the wickets were with good, rather than bad or brilliant, ones.

 

[marc71178]

But surely he only got the wickets because of very poor batting so doesn't deserve it and should in fact have 0-100 go down on his career stats.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

LMAO

Stop ffs, stop youre killing me with this persistent sarcasm.

 

[Richard]

But surely he only got the wickets because of very poor batting so doesn't deserve it and should in fact have 0-100 go down on his career stats.

If ultra-sarcastic satire is the best you can do you've already lost this argument.
And no, I don't know how he got the wickets because I haven't had the opportunity to watch.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If ultra-sarcastic satire is the best you can do you've already lost this argument.

Seen Vish's sig yet?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I haven't had the opportunity to watch.

Watch the cricket?? But the stats say he got 6 Test wickets and what else are we to judge players on?

Ok ok, I'll stop. I just had to get my bit of sarcasm in there.

 

[luckyeddie]

the sarcasm hasn't quite reached epidemic proportions, and as one who has resorted to it (a little) in a couple of posts recently, I feel well positioned to say that we ought to stop it - NOW!

(No, the irony of it being me who started the last round isn't lost on me either).

 

[Top_Cat]

If ultra-sarcastic satire is the best you can do you've already lost this argument.

Satire would indicate that he had some modicum of respect for your opinion on the matter. Personally, I think it was more of a mocking tone than satirical. Then again, it could have been derision or dismissal or a ****-take, really.

Pollock 6-78. Top bowling stats (although technically he might have bowled a load of superb deliveries which failed to get wickets then profited from some surprise bad balls which the batsmen should have put away for four but didn't. That, of course, would make it a 'poor bowling performance')

I think you're being far too generous. It was obviously an abysmal effort from a player who has the temerity to average less than 21 with the ball, which is so an indicator of his mediocrity. With awful figures like those, he obviously only deserves the wickets he doesn't get. Now, if he'd gotten 0/100, THAT would have been some superb bowling because he would have thoroughly deserved every wicket he didn't get.