Time to drop Shoaib Akhtar?

[SJS]

Time to drop Shoaib Akhtar ....

...has come and gone and come and gone and come...

 

[Richard]

oh yes and where have i argued that they cant stop them from scoring agains them on the greenest wickets? but what fool for a captain tries to restrict scoring on green wickets instead of taking wickets? yes id rather settle for 200/3 from 50 overs instead of 150 all out. smart that.

Er, eh?
So you chop-and-change the side, replacing bowlers who can be relied upon to keep the runs down and take wickets in the one-day game in all conditions (ie Saqlain, Mushtaq, Kaneria) with bowlers who might take more wickets but equally might give away crucial runs.
Personally I'd prefer Saqlain and Mushtaq on any surface to Naved-Ul-Hasan Rana or any similar bowler.

a failure against a minor side has to be included as such

Yes, so failure must be counted but success cannot be. I used to think that, then I realised what a stupid idea that is. Most failures against substandard sides do not matter as far as the result is concerned, and do not show anything about the player concerned's (lack of) ability.

have a look at his record outside the sub continent......

His top-order average outside the subcontinent (though including matches in UAE, which are very similar in conditions) when substandard-side matches are removed is 38.63, after this 5 against India that he's just this second got out for. That makes 2 failures in a row against major sides outside the subcontinent. A bit disappointing.

oh there is is there?
how many of those are proven players?
hameed- has never been consistent, his good record has largely to do with the series against bangladesh and against the substandard NZ attack in pak
elahi- again if he was proven hed be part of the side!
malik- not proven for reasons mentioned above
inzamam - finally one quality player
youhana- decent but has never been consistent
razzaq - fine quality batsman #2
moin - not reliable

oh yes amazing that with 2 quality batsmen in the side that this side is 'quality' and can go in with only 6 batsman and a keeper.

How on Earth you can say Youhana has not been consistent in ODIs - all right, he's somewhat overrated in Tests, but he's made many contributions to winning many ODIs against many sides.
Almost anyone would rate him better than Razzaq.
No, Hameed has never been consistent but I don't think anyone would argue that he's more than worth his place in the side and has bags of potential. Same with Malik.
I'd like to see you do much better, I could come-up with exactly the same dismissal of any side you concocted.

rubbish you would like to believe that that was the case. but the fact is zimbabwe were extremely poor and pakistan werent brilliant either. yet they lost 5-0. at home i might add. if they were even competitive they would be able to at least win one game at home.

Home, away, it doesn't matter with Pakistan - if they're at the top of their game, they'll beat anyone anywhere.
Pakistan weren't brilliant, no, but Zimbabwe weren't anywhere near as abysmal as they were at any time afterwards and were still more than worthy of ODI status.

thye might have deserved test status but they were never test class. their entire side revolved around andy flower and to an extent heath streak with the ball.

If they weren't Test-class they didn't deserve Test-status.
But while they might have been bottom of the pile, they always, up to the post-WC2003 player loss, deserved Test-status as far as I'm concerned.

i have and i dont like the results, outside of performances against zimbabwe havent been anything brilliant.

Personally I do.

how stupid is this?if he hasnt averaged 50 and has averaged on 36(largely due to performances at home and against zimbabwe) how can you pick him over a player who has the potential to average 40+??

Oh, Christ, not this again.
It is not fact that Kamal has the potential to average 40+
If you ask me Elahi has more potential than Kamal. That is why I would pick him. You, on the other hand, think Kamal has more potential than Elahi. So you would pick Kamal.

 

[marc71178]

That makes 2 failures in a row against major sides outside the subcontinent. A bit disappointing.

Yet if it were someone like Strauss you'd claim it was because he's not an ODI player?

So could it possibly be that Malik isn't a number 3/4?

 

[Richard]

Rubbish, Strauss has now failed 3 times in a row and you've not heard a word out of me.
Because 3 failures do not offset the previous 7 innings or however many it was. However, are there to be a few more to follow I will start to suggest that.

 

[FRAZ]

...has come and gone and come and gone and come...

And come in 20 th over and got two beauties in a double wicket maiden .

 

[Muddaser]

Mohammed Irshad cuts down Zimbabwe

 

[tooextracool]

Er, eh?
So you chop-and-change the side, replacing bowlers who can be relied upon to keep the runs down and take wickets in the one-day game in all conditions (ie Saqlain, Mushtaq, Kaneria) with bowlers who might take more wickets but equally might give away crucial runs.
Personally I'd prefer Saqlain and Mushtaq on any surface to Naved-Ul-Hasan Rana or any similar bowler.

yes i would because in seamer friendly conditions any bowler that picks up wickets will also be able to stop the scoring rate. and if you pick 3 spinners on a seamer friendly wicket, its highly unlikely that all 3 of them will be economical because if batsmen have wickets in hand, at some stage they will go after the bowling and they wont have too many problems smashing them all over the place and getting runs on a seamer friendly surface.
and if you dont know who the pace bowler who would replace the spinner is going to be, it would be foolish of you to assume that he would actually not be economical.

Yes, so failure must be counted but success cannot be. I used to think that, then I realised what a stupid idea that is. Most failures against substandard sides do not matter as far as the result is concerned, and do not show anything about the player concerned's (lack of) ability.

thats only if your a 'proven' player, seriously if someone who makes his debut and fails in 3 consecutive games against a minnow, would his failure not be considered to be a lack of ability?

His top-order average outside the subcontinent (though including matches in UAE, which are very similar in conditions) when substandard-side matches are removed is 38.63, after this 5 against India that he's just this second got out for. That makes 2 failures in a row against major sides outside the subcontinent. A bit disappointing.

and since zimbabwe were a substandard side post 2000, performances against them dont matter. in canada against india he averages 2.50, in england he averages a decent but not brilliant 34.67, in NZ he averages 23.63, in SA he average 33.2. clearly there is no case of him succeeding outside the sub continent....perhaps a reason why he was dropped then?

How on Earth you can say Youhana has not been consistent in ODIs - all right, he's somewhat overrated in Tests, but he's made many contributions to winning many ODIs against many sides..

because he rarely converts his 50s into 100s, fairly often we see him get 50 and then throw it all away.

Almost anyone would rate him better than Razzaq.

yes he is better than razzaq on the whole, but razzaq plays his position out quite brilliantly. perhaps one of the best hitters in the game at the moment.

No, Hameed has never been consistent but I don't think anyone would argue that he's more than worth his place in the side and has bags of potential. Same with Malik.
I'd like to see you do much better, I could come-up with exactly the same dismissal of any side you concocted.

yes i know, but when you have such inexperience and inconsistency you dont want to go in with 6 specialist batsmen.

Home, away, it doesn't matter with Pakistan - if they're at the top of their game, they'll beat anyone anywhere.

err i was referring to zimbabwe playing at home....

Pakistan weren't brilliant, no, but Zimbabwe weren't anywhere near as abysmal as they were at any time afterwards and were still more than worthy of ODI status.

yes i know they were a lot worse after that but that doesnt change the fact that they were just not competing with the rest of the sides after 2000.

If they weren't Test-class they didn't deserve Test-status.
But while they might have been bottom of the pile, they always, up to the post-WC2003 player loss, deserved Test-status as far as I'm concerned.

and IMO you dont have to be test class to deserve test status, and face it they just werent really competing after 2000.

Oh, Christ, not this again.
It is not fact that Kamal has the potential to average 40+
If you ask me Elahi has more potential than Kamal. That is why I would pick him. You, on the other hand, think Kamal has more potential than Elahi. So you would pick Kamal.

OMG what part of elahi has been tried and tested and come out with an average of 36 do you not understand?
kamal hasnt been tested and therefore if he is likely to average more than what elahi did, he should be in the side

 

[Will Scarlet]

Drop Aktar? Sure the guy's a head case but still a great strike bowler. A hell of a lot better than Lee in both forms of the game. PAK can trade him to NZ if they like, for say Butler!

 

[FRAZ]

^ Ex Ce Llent

 

[Waughney]

Drop Aktar? Sure the guy's a head case but still a great strike bowler. A hell of a lot better than Lee in both forms of the game. PAK can trade him to NZ if they like, for say Butler!

He may be better than Lee, but not that much better.

 

[Richard]

yes i would because in seamer friendly conditions any bowler that picks up wickets will also be able to stop the scoring rate. and if you pick 3 spinners on a seamer friendly wicket, its highly unlikely that all 3 of them will be economical because if batsmen have wickets in hand, at some stage they will go after the bowling and they wont have too many problems smashing them all over the place and getting runs on a seamer friendly surface.
and if you dont know who the pace bowler who would replace the spinner is going to be, it would be foolish of you to assume that he would actually not be economical.

And if they both of them (not all three, because I've never advocated bowling Malik on a seamer) bowl well - like Saqlain and Mushtaq have proven capable of doing on any pitch in a one-day game - they'll take wickets if you go after them (and sometimes if you don't).

thats only if your a 'proven' player, seriously if someone who makes his debut and fails in 3 consecutive games against a minnow, would his failure not be considered to be a lack of ability?

Except that Malik has suceeded against better sides.
Not enough times to make him into a "proven" player, but enough to make failures against minnow sides irrelevant.

and since zimbabwe were a substandard side post 2000, performances against them dont matter. in canada against india he averages 2.50, in england he averages a decent but not brilliant 34.67, in NZ he averages 23.63, in SA he average 33.2. clearly there is no case of him succeeding outside the sub continent....perhaps a reason why he was dropped then?

Or perhaps, given that Zimbabwe weren't substandard until after WC2003, it was just typical poor Pakistani selection?

because he rarely converts his 50s into 100s, fairly often we see him get 50 and then throw it all away.

Despite the fact that many, many of these half-centuries have played a very important part in winning matches or coming as close as anyone can ask for.

yes he is better than razzaq on the whole, but razzaq plays his position out quite brilliantly. perhaps one of the best hitters in the game at the moment.

Certainly is.

yes i know, but when you have such inexperience and inconsistency you dont want to go in with 6 specialist batsmen.

Why not? Personally I just pick my best players, however experienced they are.

err i was referring to zimbabwe playing at home....

Yes, I know, and I was saying Pakistan can make being at home totally irrelevant.

yes i know they were a lot worse after that but that doesnt change the fact that they were just not competing with the rest of the sides after 2000.

Yes, they were - see below.

and IMO you dont have to be test class to deserve test status, and face it they just werent really competing after 2000.

Then IMO that's riduculous - to merit Test-status you have to be Test-class, ie able to compete with other sides. And as late as November 2003, they were still coming close to West Indies, albeit it was when West Indies were playing shockingly poorly.
In the time from England 2000 onwards, they played as follows:
New Zealand (h) - 0-2. New Zealand were clearly a better side and won comfortably both times, but did not overwhelm them in either match. They also actually won a subsequent ODI series.
India (a) - beaten very easily, in both Tests and ODIs, as most sides are in India.
C&U Series (a) - always looked competetive with West Indies, neither side clearly anywhere near as good as Australia, though both sides came close, Zimbabwe closest.
New Zealand (a) - one-off Test, useless pitch, draw, totally pointless match. Again, though, they managed to win a subsequent ODI series.
Bangladesh (h) - won all 5 internationals very comfortably, as expected.
India (h) - 1-1, a pretty good result against a much better side.
Coca-Cola Cup (h) - lost every game IIRR. Poor performance.
West Indies (h) - 0-1, outplayed in one game (though not overwhelmed), competed well in the other.
South Africa (h) - managed to compete very well, losing one without being disgraced and drawing the other. Hammered in the ODIs.
England (h) - lost a ODI series 0-5, played very poorly against a poor England side, internal and external politics really started to show for the first time.
Bangladesh (a) - won all games bar the Test where the last 2 days were lost to rain. As expected.
Sri Lanka (a) - 0-3, hammered in Sri Lanka like most sides are.
LG Albans Series - beat West Indies once, would have qualified for the final if Sri Lanka hadn't somehow lost to them.
India (a) - hammered in India again, like most teams are.
Pakistan (h) - beaten pretty easily in all Tests and ODIs.

OMG what part of elahi has been tried and tested and come out with an average of 36 do you not understand?
kamal hasnt been tested and therefore if he is likely to average more than what elahi did, he should be in the side

Except that he's not likely to - you just think he could.
Personally I think if he were tried he'd average 34-5 sort of thing, maybe a bit less. Good, but not as good as Elahi.
And in any case, you might actually know that averages can go up (and down). Thus far in his ODI career, Elahi has underperformed against some sides. And if you ask me that'll change, assuming he plays more.

 

[Richard]

He may be better than Lee, but not that much better.

No, so that's why he's maintained a Test-match average of 24.48 throughout a period of 7 years compared with Lee's 38.something in the last 3 years!

 

[luckyeddie]

No, so that's why he's maintained a Test-match average of 24.48 throughout a period of 7 years compared with Lee's 38.something in the last 3 years!

Luck

 

[marc71178]

Or perhaps, given that Zimbabwe weren't substandard until after WC2003, it was just typical poor Pakistani selection?

Again you seem to have a very rose-tinted view of Zimbabwean cricket:

The record of said "not substandard team":

Tests -
1999 0 wins from 6
2000 0 wins from 9
2001 4 wins from 11
2002 0 wins from 6
2003 0 wins from 6

4 wins from 38 games there, and 3 of those were against the might Bangladesh.

ODIs -
1999 10 wins from 26
2000 9 wins from 32
2001 10 wins from 37
2002 4 wins from 15
2003 7 wins from 23

A bit better here - 40 wins from 133. Then you see 8 wins against Bangladesh and 8 against Kenya

So please tell me how this side wasn't substandard?

 

[Richard]

Luck

Oh, OK, if you say so, you're entitled to your view.
Personally I think his devestating swing in all conditions, allied to use of seam-movement when possible, make him a very good bowler and when I've seen his wicket-taking spells there've been plenty of balls that deserved the wickets.

 

[Richard]

Again you seem to have a very rose-tinted view of Zimbabwean cricket:

The record of said "not substandard team":

Tests -
1999 0 wins from 6
2000 0 wins from 9
2001 4 wins from 11
2002 0 wins from 6
2003 0 wins from 6

4 wins from 38 games there, and 3 of those were against the might Bangladesh.

ODIs -
1999 10 wins from 26
2000 9 wins from 32
2001 10 wins from 37
2002 4 wins from 15
2003 7 wins from 23

A bit better here - 40 wins from 133. Then you see 8 wins against Bangladesh and 8 against Kenya

So please tell me how this side wasn't substandard?

Because it's not results that tell you how good they were, it's looking at:
a) the players, and their potential
b) how those results went, how close they were, what were the influencing factors (toss, etc.)

 

[luckyeddie]

Oh, OK, if you say so, you're entitled to your view.
Personally I think his devestating swing in all conditions, allied to use of seam-movement when possible, make him a very good bowler and when I've seen his wicket-taking spells there've been plenty of balls that deserved the wickets.

Of course it's not my opinion that his wickets are down to luck - I just said that to have another 'dig' at your expense. I'm sure the others 'got it'.

I'm a great admirer of Shoaib - the likes of Sami aren't worthy to lace his boots up. Top bloke, great entertainer, quite devastating on occasions.

Took a quite remarkable c&b too in the game against West Indies today.

 

[Richard]

Yes, I too was joking - well, sort-of, I'm just not such a known joker as you so maybe it wasn't so obvious.
I didn't really think you thought Shoaib was lucky.
I simply "dug" at your "dig". It's the best response from my POV - don't take it too seriously, old boy.

 

[luckyeddie]

Yes, I too was joking - well, sort-of, I'm just not such a known joker as you so maybe it wasn't so obvious.
I didn't really think you thought Shoaib was lucky.
I simply "dug" at your "dig". It's the best response from my POV - don't take it too seriously, old boy.

 

[marc71178]

Because it's not results that tell you how good they were, it's looking at:
a) the players, and their potential
b) how those results went, how close they were, what were the influencing factors (toss, etc.)

Sorry 4 wins in 38 games, 3 of which are discounted because they're against Bangladesh.

That clearly shows they're a superb side with great players doesn't it?