Time to drop Shoaib Akhtar?

[Richard]

what is your point though? why try to give me an occasion where they competed after wc 2003 despite the fact that it doesnt help your argument or my argument?

Because it does help mine - even when they were substandard, they still managed to compete once.
If they can do it when they're not good enough, they certainly could when they were.

err no they were hammered far more often than they competed, look carefully, and they were certainly nowhere near as competitive as they were pre 2000

Yes, they were.

or rather it was just another of your attempts of modifying facts to suit yourself?
strange that you missed out neutral venues, yet got the C& U series in 00 and the lg abans triangular.......

Yes - because they're on the list I used.
Test-match and ODI Tours (Zimbabwe)
See?

 

[harris_zaman]

I seriously doubt anyone in their right mind would drop Akhtar. He can come up with some great figures. The Pakistani selectors need to stick to their guns, a bit like the Aussie selectors with Brett Lee, one day he'll get 0/60 from 8 and then he'll pick up 4/24 off 8.

Yes i agree..al bowlers have their ups and downs...Shoaib is a bowler with one of the best strike rates in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

Because it does help mine - even when they were substandard, they still managed to compete once.
If they can do it when they're not good enough, they certainly could when they were.

how does it help yours? you said that they were sub standard after the world cup, and then brought up an occasion when they actually competed.....almost contradicting yourself.

Yes, they were..

so you are saying that they were just as competitive as they were from say 97-00?

Yes - because they're on the list I used.
Test-match and ODI Tours (Zimbabwe)
See?

then make sure you get the right list then, instead of conveniently missing out 8 ODIs all of which they lost.

 

[Richard]

how does it help yours? you said that they were sub standard after the world cup, and then brought up an occasion when they actually competed.....almost contradicting yourself.

Almost... but not.
Just because they competed once doesn't mean they're Test-standard.
However, the fact that they could compete with a massively weaker side than the one a year before suggests that the one a year before couldn't have been all that terrible.

so you are saying that they were just as competitive as they were from say 97-00?

Don't know, didn't watch them until WC99 - certainly they weren't as competetive 2000\01-2002\03 as they were 1999-2000.
But they were still competetive enough to be classed as up-to-standard in Test and ODI cricket as far as I'm concerned.

then make sure you get the right list then, instead of conveniently missing out 8 ODIs all of which they lost.

Not especially convenient, was it? You pointed it out, we can modify the record.
I'll try to get it right next time, to avoid being accused of something I'm not guilty of.

 

[Richard]

OMG do you not learn? you yourself said that potential doesnt mean anything until they perform.....and then you compared bowlers like friend and blignaut to bowlers like bracken and williams..

Yes, I did - because if you ask me Das scoring the runs he did against Friend, Blignaut and colleagues was comparable to Chopra scoring the runs he didn't against Bracken, Williams and colleagues.
Just because the latter happened to be Australian doesn't mean they can't be as bad as some Zimbabweans.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, but with 1 win from 34, how can the team be anything but substandard?

For the record they had plenty of innings defeats and big runs and wickets as well.

Yes, in Sri Lanka and India, where many teams have had many big defeats.
At home especially (on the rare occasion they played at home) they were very competetive most of the time, while still in the end being beaten mostly - because while they were still the worse side, they weren't so bad as to not deserve to be playing at all.
I've already listed the results, and I think it shows more than conclusively that Zimbabwe deserved Test and ODI status up to the post-WC2003 loss of players - along with the quality of the players involved.

 

[Richard]

except that very few of those 50s actually won games, most of the time hes out too early to help them win any game.

Hmm, I think he's played more than his fair part in winning more games than most.
Certainly I think he's good enough to be rated alongside Inzamam-Ul-Haq and Razzaq as ODI players.

of course you believe that all of them have the potential to be, otherwise you wouldnt have picked them in the side. but the fact is that they havent done anything that has made them anywhere near world class yet, half of them arent evey proven batsmen. and when you have a side like that you dont go in with 6 batsman....

Don't you? Even if you think that side has the best chance of winning you games?
Personally I think that Pakistan need 4 always-rely-to-bowl-10 bowlers. I also think Moin Khan is the best choice as wicketkeeper.
So therefore I haven't any choice in the matter.

no the fact is that pakistan never have rarely ever been that consistent throughout any tournament......and this wasnt any different, another of those cases where the opposition just were too bad.

They've had their moments - this was one of them. For crying out loud, Pakistan have managed to lose to Bangladesh (WC99), they really have been that unprofessional when it really didn't matter at all.
On this occasion, though, they weren't unprofessional - they played well throughout the series.

1)ive already pointed out reasons why that average is higher than what hes worth
2) if someone has the potential to average far more than him, then you bring that person into the side ahead of him....

Yes, you do.
I don't believe that, however.

and i believe that he could be just about as devastating if he got a chance in ODIs....

Maybe he could. But I think he'd be more likely to average 34-5.
Knowing Pakistan's selectors, it probably won't be too long before he gets an ODI call-up, so we'll see for certain whether he really can do better than Elahi.

 

[Richard]

how is it made up? the man isnt half as effective as what a seamer would be on a seamer friendly wicket and he cant bat and theres a player who bowls just like him whos more valuable in the side!

Malik does not bowl like Saqlain - he cannot bowl well on non-tuners.
Saqlain can, and yes, I do believe he would be as effective as a seamer on a seaming pitch, we've seen him do it plenty of times in ODIs.

yes i know but look carefully and see how many fast bowlers you have in your side ATM....whatever happens there will be plenty of occasions with you having to bowl your spinners at the death and even if you didnt with wickets in hand i wouldnt be surprised if the fast bowlers went for a truckload of runs.

And fortunately all these bowlers can contain and take wickets, on all surfaces (given that Razzaq can do it on a seamer and Malik on a turner).
Saqlain, meanwhile, has proven more than capable of bowling at the death, as has Shoaib. So except in exceptional circumstances, you bowl them at the death.

macgill isnt by any means a proven failure, and his success against SA proves that. he might not be 'world class' or even a proven player but that doesnt take away the fact that hes done well even if rarely.

Yes, he has, but doing well rarely (especially when most of those occasions were over 5 years ago) tends to suggest "proven failure" if those rarities have come amongst failures.

so you finally agree that failure against all sides counts now?

It certainly contributed to the like of Hussain patronising him and saying he shouldn't be batting up the order in England, yes.
It made people think he's a worse player than he is.
Hopefully he'll get the chance to redress that.

so marc disagreeing with you on the same fact means that no one agrees with me then?

marc simply looks at the results and makes assumptions (I've never actually heard him mention it before you brought it up, he normally insists all things called "Test" or "ODI" must be counted as such).

no he wasnt, because he struggled against most other sides away from home....and never played anywhere as well as he did in zimbabwe anywhere else in the world.

Aside from the fact that those Zimbabwe games count for more than you give them credit for:
His most recent away series produced a creditable average of 31.25 from 4 innings.
He averaged 39.60 in South Africa.
He averaged a more-than-reasonable 34.66 in NWS2001 (England).
He averaged a respectible 30.25 in the KCA Centenary tournament.
He also averaged a respectible 31.25 in the Sharjah Champions Trophy (though personally I'd say Sharjah is a second home to Pakistan).
If it's a crime that he didn't manage to average 89.33 in every away series, then fine, but personally I'd say his away achievements allied to his home ones and those in Zimbabwe are more than reasonable and certainly merit more than 48 ODIs.

 

[tooextracool]

Almost... but not.
Just because they competed once doesn't mean they're Test-standard.

yes i know, which is why i dont understand the point of that post....

However, the fact that they could compete with a massively weaker side than the one a year before suggests that the one a year before couldn't have been all that terrible.

why? just because a poor side competes with a test playing nation and still ended up losing that series btw, it doesnt mean that a marginally better side(ie with andy flower) would have made that side test class. just because b'desh competed with pakistan and WI it doesnt make them remotely close to being test class.

Don't know, didn't watch them until WC99 - certainly they weren't as competetive 2000\01-2002\03 as they were 1999-2000.
But they were still competetive enough to be classed as up-to-standard in Test and ODI cricket as far as I'm concerned.

no they werent, because even pre 2000 they were beyond doubt the worst test playing nation in both tests and ODIs, they were however not just competitive but also capable of beating any team on their day. since then they havent been half as competitive, and certainly the only times they have ever been capable of beating a test class opponent is on their day and on the opponents worst.

Not especially convenient, was it? You pointed it out, we can modify the record.
I'll try to get it right next time, to avoid being accused of something I'm not guilty of.

yes and that was 8 whole ODIs that they lost, quite a bit when you add that to their record.

 

[tooextracool]

Hmm, I think he's played more than his fair part in winning more games than most.
Certainly I think he's good enough to be rated alongside Inzamam-Ul-Haq and Razzaq as ODI players.

definetly not near as good as inzamam, just below razzaq because razzaqs hitting has turned several matches on their heads. youhana has just too often got out without getting the big one....

Don't you? Even if you think that side has the best chance of winning you games?

the thing is that it doesnt....

Personally I think that Pakistan need 4 always-rely-to-bowl-10 bowlers. I also think Moin Khan is the best choice as wicketkeeper.
So therefore I haven't any choice in the matter.

and you still have '4 always-rely-to-bowl-10-overs' because malik is certainly reliable, i personally wouldnt be confident with a pakistan side full of inexperienced players batting only till 7.

They've had their moments - this was one of them. For crying out loud, Pakistan have managed to lose to Bangladesh (WC99), they really have been that unprofessional when it really didn't matter at all.
On this occasion, though, they weren't unprofessional - they played well throughout the series.

yes because zimbabwe was the opponent, and they werent much to talk about.

Yes, you do.
I don't believe that, however.

then lets just leave it at that then.....

Maybe he could. But I think he'd be more likely to average 34-5.
Knowing Pakistan's selectors, it probably won't be too long before he gets an ODI call-up, so we'll see for certain whether he really can do better than Elahi.

and im not going to deny that, except id rather see someone like kamal given a go instead of a proven failure like elahi....

 

[tooextracool]

Malik does not bowl like Saqlain - he cannot bowl well on non-tuners..

and you came to this conclusion how?

Saqlain can, and yes, I do believe he would be as effective as a seamer on a seaming pitch, we've seen him do it plenty of times in ODIs.

for example?

And fortunately all these bowlers can contain and take wickets, on all surfaces (given that Razzaq can do it on a seamer and Malik on a turner).
Saqlain, meanwhile, has proven more than capable of bowling at the death, as has Shoaib. So except in exceptional circumstances, you bowl them at the death.

oh no, akhtar has always been inconsistent so you can never really rely on him.saqlain has been good in the death on non seamer friendly wickets. and given that razzaq has figures like these in his last 30 games, 50.19 4.85, im not so sure i could rely on razzaq as anything more than a fill in bowler on any wicket.

Yes, he has, but doing well rarely (especially when most of those occasions were over 5 years ago) tends to suggest "proven failure" if those rarities have come amongst failures..

so 2001-02 is over 5 years ago then?as was the series in the WI?

marc simply looks at the results and makes assumptions (I've never actually heard him mention it before you brought it up, he normally insists all things called "Test" or "ODI" must be counted as such)...

whatever he insists on is irrelevant, the point is that some off your claims are just ludicrous.....

Aside from the fact that those Zimbabwe games count for more than you give them credit for:
His most recent away series produced a creditable average of 31.25 from 4 innings.

oh yes 31.25 is highly creditable

He averaged 39.60 in South Africa.

and if you take into account the dropped catch by klusener at third man when he was on 34(eventually made 135), his first chance average would be 19.4

He averaged a more-than-reasonable 34.66 in NWS2001 (England).

again its not brilliant....

He averaged a respectible 30.25 in the KCA Centenary tournament.

oh yes 30.25 is extremely respectable

If it's a crime that he didn't manage to average 89.33 in every away series, then fine, but personally I'd say his away achievements allied to his home ones and those in Zimbabwe are more than reasonable and certainly merit more than 48 ODIs.

no its not a crime but it must be looked at in context, 48 ODIs is certainly a long enough period of time for someone to average a lot more than the 34 odd that he averaged excluding the tour of zimbabwe.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, I did - because if you ask me Das scoring the runs he did against Friend, Blignaut and colleagues was comparable to Chopra scoring the runs he didn't against Bracken, Williams and colleagues.
Just because the latter happened to be Australian doesn't mean they can't be as bad as some Zimbabweans.

and they happen to have far more potential than any of those zimbabwe bowlers will ever have......

 

[marc71178]

because while they were still the worse side, they weren't so bad as to not deserve to be playing at all.

1 win in 34, and you think it's not substandard...