Ajmal claims special concession to 15 degree rule allowed by ICC

[vic_orthdox]

As a neutral, I know I wasn't the only one who thought that the Test wasn't over, especially considering the previous two tests, when you'd bowled them out for 99.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

As a neutral, I know I wasn't the only one who thought that the Test wasn't over, especially considering the previous two tests, when you'd bowled them out for 99.

True, my point is that it should have been - which is borne out by history.

[smalishah84]

Ajmal haters can suck it and keep on sucking it

Pakistan v England 2011-12: The facts about Saeed Ajmal | Cricket News | Pakistan v England | ESPN Cricinfo

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

True, my point is that it should have been - which is borne out by history.

cricket is not played in history. It is played by the guys out there picked for their teams and with the ones picked for England, it was always a chance that even that total was enough..


That is why this is a stupid argument. With the team you had, even 99 was a good score and Pakistan were not out of it. So why again could it have so easily been 2-1?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Stupid comment.

Look, England deservedly lost 3-0 because the Pakistani bowlers owned our batsmen throughout the series. However, in the 2nd Test, England had a 4th innings target of 145. In the 3rd Test, we bowled out Pakistan for 99 on the first day. Those are scenarios where you'd expect teams to win on the vast majority of occasions - I can't figure out how to fiddle with statsguru to get some numbers regarding how often a team successfully chases down a total of <150, but Pakistan being the first team in 105 years to win a Test after failing to make 100 in the first innings of a Test match tells you all you need to know about whether England should have won the 3rd Test.

That is a million miles away from your 'if only India's batsmen could have collectively scored 500 more runs in each test' scenario, in which you've also conveniently forgotten how hopeless India's bowling was in 7 out of the 8 Tests in question.

Dont buy it. Because another team might have won says nothing about this team winning. Yes if you had another teams lineup it might have been 2-1, but you didn't so it wasn't.

Never said India going 8-0 was equally likely as 2-1 but considering the ineptitude of the batting on display, 2-1 was a very long way away.

[uvelocity]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

Ajmal haters can suck it and keep on sucking it

you know what, from the very little I've heard from him, I really like the bloke.

[Fusion]

All you wanted to know about Saeed Ajmal

What’s the difference between a nuclear fallout and a media fallout*? Well, a nuclear fallout is a deeply unpleasant side effect that lingers interminably, whereas a media fallout is a deeply unpleasant side effect that lingers interminably for which journalists get paid.

Early in the recent series, a few English types tried to launch the Saeed Ajmal crooked arm thing, but like a poorly constructed kite on a windless afternoon, it didn’t really take off, no matter how much they ran with it. In the end it was left to Saeed himself to take pity on the struggling hacks by talking about his special dispensation from the ICC to have a bent arm or something. I forget the details.

And as sure as the doosra follows Ian Bell’s front pad, a little typhoon of tediousness blew up in the desert as journalists and message board trolls desperately tried to fan the infant spark of baby controversy into a toddler-sized blaze. Yesterday, ESPNcricinfo’s own King Cnut, George Dobell, tried valiantly to stand against the waves of silliness by laying out the facts about Saeed’s perfectly legal action.

But no one with newspapers to sell or fellow cricket lovers to annoy is interested in anything as dreary as facts and George’s efforts have not stemmed the tide of preposterous speculation and libellous insanity. So it falls to the Long Handle to sort things out. In no particular order, here are the answers to the questions you wanted to ask, didn’t ask because you were afraid you’d look stupid but then thought, “Ah well, it’s the internet, no one’s looking,” and posted them up anyway.

I heard from the wife of the man who grooms Shoaib Akhtar’s poodle that Saeed Ajmal cannot straighten his right arm as he is half-velociraptor. Is this true?

No. Saeed only spent his summer holidays with the velociraptors who were friends of the family. In fact, he grew up on a ranch in Oklahoma where he developed the kink in his arm from too much vigorous lassoing of cattle as a child.

Ten years ago, in a secret deal with the PCB, the ICC cleared the use of artificial arms with food blender attachments that can impart illegal levels of spin and pace on the ball and, being made of aluminium, never get tired. Is this true?

This is perfectly true, but to date, Mitchell Johnson is the only international cricketer to have incorporated cyborg technology, with mixed results. Engineers are now working on the Midge 2.01, a mechanical arm featuring a safety valve that prevents the bowler from releasing the ball if he’s facing in the wrong direction.

Last August, whilst browsing in the Redditch branch of Sainsbury’s I saw Saeed Ajmal reaching for a tin of pilchards from the top shelf of the tinned produce aisle and I noticed that he completely straightened his arm. Doesn’t this prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is a cheat, albeit a cheat with a high Omega 3 intake?

No. In fact, it is well know that Saeed is allergic to fish, which is why when he was shipwrecked in the Bermuda Triangle with Lady Gaga and the UN Secretary General they were able to sustain themselves by catching sea creatures, whilst our hero lost two kilograms in weight and had to survive by eating pages of Ian Bell’s autobiography. The man you mistook for Saeed was almost certainly Ramiz Raja without the Austin Powers wig that he dons for his celebrity appearances on Sky.

My friend and I were having a disagreement. She thinks the argument about DRS is the most tedious topic of cricket conversation known to humanity, but I’m convinced that the degrees of tolerance debate is so boring it can cause birds to fall out of the sky and fish to commit suicide by banging their heads against the side of their tank just to make it stop. Which of us is right?

You both are.


* Not to be confused with a media falling out, which is what happens when David Gower accidentally treads on Jonathan Agnew’s foot and causes him to tip coffee all over Geoffrey Boycott’s laptop as he’s writing his column for the Whine on Sunday.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Stupid comment.

Look, England deservedly lost 3-0 because the Pakistani bowlers owned our batsmen throughout the series. However, in the 2nd Test, England had a 4th innings target of 145. In the 3rd Test, we bowled out Pakistan for 99 on the first day. Those are scenarios where you'd expect teams to win on the vast majority of occasions - I can't figure out how to fiddle with statsguru to get some numbers regarding how often a team successfully chases down a total of <150, but Pakistan being the first team in 105 years to win a Test after failing to make 100 in the first innings of a Test match tells you all you need to know about whether England should have won the 3rd Test.

That is a million miles away from your 'if only India's batsmen could have collectively scored 500 more runs in each test' scenario, in which you've also conveniently forgotten how hopeless India's bowling was in 7 out of the 8 Tests in question.

You can so easily say "Had India not let Swann and Broad get runs at Trent Bridge, had India not collapse like bitches after being 50 ahead with 6 wkts in hand etc." then it's 1-1 and the series is totally different.

Can say the exact same thing about India vs. Australia in the MCG test, and the series is different if they are 1-0 up.

But you won't hear anyone sensible saying that because its fairly useless. Saying England could have won 2-1 is a massive stretch imo.

[Jono]

The other key point is that Engand actually didn't come close to chasing down the 150-odd in the 2nd test. If they collapsed for 130 its different. But less than 80 means they weren't even close.

[Cevno]

Also could say Pakistan should not have got out for 99 in the first day of the 3rd test. And also they Should not have set England a total of less than 150 to chase in the 2nd test.

Works both ways.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Cevno

Also could say Pakistan should not have got out for 99 in the first day of the 3rd test. And also they Should not have set England a total of less than 150 to chase in the 2nd test.

Works both ways.

Apparently starting the game well and finishing it poorly is better than the other way around.

[smalishah84]

England.........LEARN

Mohammad Shahzad reverse sweep SIX - YouTube

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Apparently starting the game well and finishing it poorly is better than the other way around.

Clearly nobody said that, straw man

Anyway this has gone on long enough. Clearly we deserved to lose the series but I don't see why people can't see why it's frustrating for us? There were moments there for the taking and we blew them and ultimately that cost us, but that doesn't and shouldn't take anything away from Pakistan who did quite the opposite - made the key moments count and fought back from their setbacks

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by GIMH

Clearly nobody said that, straw man

Anyway this has gone on long enough. Clearly we deserved to lose the series but I don't see why people can't see why it's frustrating for us? There were moments there for the taking and we blew them and ultimately that cost us, but that doesn't and shouldn't take anything away from Pakistan who did quite the opposite - made the key moments count and fought back from their setbacks

Every team that has lost a series ever will have those moments. But I don't see why the fans saying it could have so easily been 2-1 use this as some sort of justification.

[Jono]

Tbf I don't think the English are using it as some sort of "justification" through that statement. I disagree that saying it could have been 2-1 is a fair statement, but nevertheless they're not stating that to take anything away from Pakistan or defend their performance.