This is my final reply to this thread, as i have better things to do than educate idiots of this planet.
that you show potential you have to perform first,
fundamental contradiction due to erroneous understanding of english.
nd by that definition, basically any bowler in world cricket today has the potential to be an all time great.
I am not gonna repeat myself. I have said what you require to be considered a potential great. read and learn.
the very thing ive been refuting is that pathan cant have potential to greatness, because he hasnt performed yet, hence he doesnt have 'this potential to greatness' rubbish. he doesnt fit in the definition.
You need ESL courses..... me thinks English as first language courses would be too challenging. Again, fundamental inconsistency in your quote(highlighted part). For the last time, Performance is not a required criteria to have potential.
where did i assure you that? only a fool would consider the odd ball thats in the high 80s to be someones overall pace, as ive said time and time one ball doesnt prove anything, its how you bowl throughout the game.
In this very thread you 'assured me' that Pathan doesnt bowl in the mid 80s...like i said, shut up or take the wager that his AVERAGE SPEED in the OZ series and PAK last year was 85-86mph.
are you going to respond to the question or not? stop bringing up inconsequential things to try and make yourself look better, why look at all the spinners who've played for england over the last few years, when pathan is a pace bowler and his performance should be compared to the english pacers of the past decade.
Again, i have addressed this - even IF your spinner theory is taken into account, ENG didnt play a single spinner for quiete a few games...and Cork/Caddick/Gough/Fraser didnt play very much together...essentially it means that the 3rd seamer's place is predominantly occupied by the seamers i mentioned in my list. Since ENG didnt play spinners always, that opens up the 4th bowler's spot sometimes too.... if you are too thick to understand, it means approx 60-70% of the time the 3rd seamer's spot would be open and 20-25% (independent instances to 3rd seamer's spot) would be open as well...which means he could slot in the bowling approx 80-60% time, which was my initial claim
flintoff- who was picked for his all round capabilities(or more importantly for his superior batting abilities) as opposed to his bowling.
Flintoff was initially picked as a very much bowling allrounder...in anycase, i didnt mention Flintoff, someone else did.
craig white- who averages a whole 6 runs less than pathan and again was picked for his all round abilities, as opposed to just his bowling
a whole 6 runs after playing a number of years as compared to one who's barely been playing more than a year....
Besides, you need to learn some mathematics after you learn English. Pathan without Bangladesh(at the time of the argument, before this match), Pathan's ave. was 41+change.
Craig White averages 37+change. that is FOUR whole runs...not six.
pringle - who averages about 7 runs less than pathan.
chris lewis - who again averaged about 6 runs less than pathan and was picked for his all round capabilities.
devon malcolm who again averaged 6 runs below pathan.
learn mathematics. Pronto.
41. - 37. is not six. it is 4.
In anycase, they were tried and tested failures, despite bowling in a much better overall pace attack as opposed to a young upstart with the right tools to be a great.
wow a whole 15 years ago, seriously, that was the time when reverse swing was unheard of everywhere other than pakistan. to use that as a reason to explain why no one in england knows anything about reverse swing 10 years later is ludicrous.
reverse swing was very much heard of- its been around since the late 70s/early 80s.
But no, most english commentators dont know diddly squat about reverse swing. They fundamentally contradict themselves many times when they say 'reverse swing' and confuse it with late swing.
then maybe you should be smart enough to realise when someone actually bowls reverse huh? but of course boycott, cozier and shastri are all wrong and biased and craig white could never reverse swing the ball
Regardless, they have mistaken late swing for reverse swing and i stand by that. Like i said, you'd best not debate this with me or i will be forced to give you a lesson in fluid dynamics, something that was one of my strong points.
so who are these batsman that have said that pathan's in swinger is more potent than white's? who are these batsmen that have said that he even has such a potent in swinger, when he hasnt been able to get too many wickets with them? then again its probably someone from bangladesh.
Try Tendulkar, try Inzamam. Try Dravid. Try Graeme Smith.
They all have said that Pathan's inswinger is an awesome inswinger.....i am yet tohear anyone say that about White, who's was merely decent.
rubbish, absolutely any commentator can tell whats reverse swing,even if he doesnt know how it works. its no surprise that you've ignore tony cozier's comment about white though, guess hes ignorant about it too. really you are the only one whos ever claimed that white couldnt reverse swing it, lets see you bring up any article or anybody whos ever said that white couldnt reverse swing the ball.
you cant tell something if you dont know the fundamental criteria for it. Granted, you dont need to understand the mechanics for it...but reverse swing is when the ball swings AWAY from the shiny side. And i can categorically say that most commentators dont haev a clue about reverse swing...they just throw it around for the sake of it and in many instances it is late swing.
you really dont want to get to the insults i can assure you.
If you **** me off enough, i will say whatever i want. If you think you can do better, bring it!
as opposed to the indians who overhype basically every player who's ever played cricket. please, dont even start, every country overhypes their players, its all part of the media. whatever this has to do with me i'll never know, because any expert would know better than to overhype a player unless hes proven.
Unfortuately, your comments about IND has been true over the last few years.....but i still havnt seen ANY national media overhype mediocre players to the level England does...and it has everything to do with you since you were quoting articles from the british media from hoboken journalists.
who exactly said that? absolutely no one. most of the people who even suggested that were saying that when he bowled they reminded themselves of ambrose, and if i remember correctly, that came from the players who actually faced him.
The guardian and the sun carried articles where they announced Harmison as the new Ambrose....hell they went even as far as to say that he is delifery-for-delivery a match for king curtley.
eally?
who ever said that henman was as good as sampras on grass?
BBC, Sun, Gaurdian, wimbledon brit commentators etc. during the 98-2002 period... said Henman is the only one who can give Sampras a genuine hard fight...when in reality he crapped all over the court when Sampras faced him- regularly.
and if you manage to ever read english correctly, you might realise that ive never said any of the above
And if you can get your brain fixed pronto, you might realise then, that if you never said the above, you have no business contradicting that Pathan reminds people of Akram, when one of those people is Akram himself!
