Can Pathan be as good as Wasim?

[indianreligion]

i agree with you that pak attack is better but only due to the akhtar factor which gives them the edge (but certainly not by a long way).

i mean:
sami- avg:45, SR-80. even Ajit has a better record than this.
shabbir-7 matches. 3 against bang.., 1 against india(wicketless), and yes 3 good matches(2 in nz). you can barely judge him yet.
danish- good spinner. nothing more.

so(a bit tacky explanation below, but i hope you get what i mean)
sami=ajit
shabbir+danish = nehra+kumble
that leaves out akhtar and pathan. and yes akthar obviously has the edge.

ur obvs not good in maths....

 

[marc71178]

Kumble = shabbir + danish - nehra !!!!:O how?

Shabbir is much better than Nehra.
Kumble is much better than Kaneria.

 

[indianreligion]

Shabbir is much better than Nehra.
Kumble is much better than Kaneria.

question here is:

is shabbir as much better than nehra as kumble is, than kaneria.

:O :P

 

[marc71178]

About the same difference IMO - if that makes sense!

 

[Raj123]

ur obvs not good in maths....

i bet i'm much better than you...(although that might not mean much considering you cant even understand simple arithmetic).

Shabbir is much better than Nehra.Kumble is much better than Kaneria.

see all you(indian...,shankar) had to do was apply a bit of common sence.

question here is:is shabbir as much better than nehra as kumble is, than kaneria.

nehra avg is > 40 and shabbir is about 23(although as i have said in the original post, at this stage it doesnt mean much, but still.....)
danish is good but anil is world class.

even if anil+nehra edge out shabbir+danish it only compliments what i was trying to say: "pakistan has better bowling but not by much"

 

[shankar]

question here is:
is shabbir as much better than nehra as kumble is, than kaneria.

No

Shabbir is much better than Nehra.
Kumble is much better than Kaneria.

Marc you say that Pathan needs to perform over a period of time to prove that he is any good.However you've seen enough of Shabbir, a bowler who's played 7 tests ( 3 against BANG) to proclaim that he is much much better than Nehra. Very hypocritical.

Note:I agree that Pak bowling is better than India's attack too.

 

[marc71178]

Marc you say that Pathan needs to perform over a period of time to prove that he is any good.However you've seen enough of Shabbir, a bowler who's played 7 tests ( 3 against BANG) to proclaim that he is much much better than Nehra. Very hypocritical.

Pathan hasn't started his career that well, but Shabbir has.

Nehra's career has always been awful though, in both forms of the game over a number of years.

 

[shankar]

Pathan hasn't started his career that well, but Shabbir has.

Nehra's career has always been awful though, in both forms of the game over a number of years.

Pathan's not started as impressively as Shabbir in terms of figures. But in terms of actual performance he's done pretty well in the last test against Aus, instrumental in India winning the 1'st test on a placid pitch.

But forget that. I agree that Nehra's been poor in Tests (although he has taken Lara's wicket thrice!!!).But he has shown some quality occasionally when conditions suit him. Your point with Pathan has been that he might fall away after a couple of good series performances. Why do you not apply the same yardstick to Shabbir? how can you state that he's far far better than Nehra so early in Shabbir's career?

(Nehra might do a Harmison )

 

[luckyeddie]

(Nehra might do a Harmison )

Taking Lara's wicket 3 times is a good place to start.

 

[Raj123]

BC Lara c Ratra b Nehra 9 31 25 1 0
BC Lara c Dravid b Nehra 47 168 102 4 0
BC Lara c & b Nehra 55 183 123 5 0

ok. whats next?

 

[Swervy]

BC Lara c Ratra b Nehra 9 31 25 1 0
BC Lara c Dravid b Nehra 47 168 102 4 0
BC Lara c & b Nehra 55 183 123 5 0

ok. whats next?

then start getting other people out as well

 

[Umair316]

i agree with you that pak attack is better but only due to the akhtar factor which gives them the edge (but certainly not by a long way).

i mean:
sami- avg:45, SR-80. even Ajit has a better record than this.
shabbir-7 matches. 3 against bang.., 1 against india(wicketless), and yes 3 good matches(2 in nz). you can barely judge him yet.
danish- good spinner. nothing more.

so(a bit tacky explanation below, but i hope you get what i mean)
sami=ajit
shabbir+danish = nehra+kumble
that leaves out akhtar and pathan. and yes akthar obviously has the edge.

Obviously most Indians here have not followed Pakistan cricket in recent times or else they would not have mentioned this.
Let me tell you something about stats that you have presented above.
Lets take this for example, Micheal Bevan averages 55 in ODIs, would you label him better then Sachin Tendulkar.

Adam Gilchrist averages 60 odd in tests, would you label him better then Tendulkar.

Statistics hide more then they reveal about a player.
Lets not judge a player's class from looking at his numbers.

 

[aussie_beater]

Adam Gilchrist averages 60 odd in tests, would you label him better then Tendulkar.

Just a correction.....Gilchrist averages 54 in tests as of today. And Sachin averages 58.

 

[Anil]

Lets take this for example, Micheal Bevan averages 55 in ODIs, would you label him better then Sachin Tendulkar.

You might be surprised, incredible as it seems, there are some in this forum who consider him to be a better one day player than Sachin...

 

[Tom Halsey]

I wouldn't even try to compare Sachin and Bevo - 2 completely different players.

 

[NikhilN]

Lets take this for example, Micheal Bevan averages 55 in ODIs, would you label him better then Sachin Tendulkar.

Not really...Tendulkar has played more matches then him so there are points where he did bad so his avg went down...by the time bevan plays the same # of matches as tendulkar he will most likely be in the late 30s through the early 40s

 

[Swervy]

Not really...Tendulkar has played more matches then him so there are points where he did bad so his avg went down...by the time bevan plays the same # of matches as tendulkar he will most likely be in the late 30s through the early 40s

lets not start on this type of thing...it is impossible to say that Bevan would average in the late 30's if he played as many as Tendulkar...ridiculous reasoning....and I think it is way off topic as well

 

[Sehwag309]

I have gotta say something here and I have said it before

When we start comparing all these stats and figures, then obviusly Indian bowling looks weaker than Pak's.

Now, In Ind/Pak Cricket, you can basically throw away the stats, coz anything can happen. Balaji can take wickets, Shoaib Mallik can hit century.etc.,

Some people may argue Shoaib troubled Sachin, OK..He left his deleveries, and he should have as he is not battling with him, he is playing for India V/S PAk. Just like a batsmen doesnt not score of every ball, the bowler also doesnt get hit every ball he delivers.
But at he end of the day Sachin ended up with 194, and Aktar with 0 wickets

Pathan bowled well, but again 4 for 100

Real Hero was Kumble 6 for ...

Likewise, in 2nd Test..anybody can become a hero for either team.

 

[Sehwag309]

 

[Raj123]

Obviously most Indians here have not followed Pakistan cricket in recent times or else they would not have mentioned this.
Let me tell you something about stats that you have presented above.
Lets take this for example, Micheal Bevan averages 55 in ODIs, would you label him better then Sachin Tendulkar.

Adam Gilchrist averages 60 odd in tests, would you label him better then Tendulkar.

Statistics hide more then they reveal about a player.
Lets not judge a player's class from looking at his numbers.

ok. so instead of just saying pak bowling is way better than india's could you please explain why this so(except for akhtar though, i dont think anyone would dispute that he is best bowler in the world at the moment).

and dont give just one example like how sami wrecked nz order(cos once in a blue moon even ajit does that).