India Or Pakistan

[Swervy]

I dont remember anyone ever saying Hick was better than Bradman..how old were you when you 'heard' that one....

 

[biased indian]

sorry mate, but a few members of this forum indeed have said that. or the same sorta thing.

i dont think many members would have said anything that about hick in 93 since it was not there. u r saying about the mebers here and c_c is saying about the media hype there was around Hick
it definetly was more than about what was there for pathan in indian media

 

[honestbharani]

I dont remember anyone ever saying Hick was better than Bradman..how old were you when you 'heard' that one....

I don't think he said they said that Hick was better than Bradman, juz that they said he was the current day Bradman, which they have. I have heard big names of English cricket say those things. IIRC, even CMJ said that... Pathan is not that hyped. Sure, he is hyped, yes, but not by THAT much.

 

[marc71178]

I dont remember anyone ever saying Hick was better than Bradman..how old were you when you 'heard' that one....

That was my point as well.

 

[C_C]

I dont remember anyone ever saying Hick was better than Bradman..how old were you when you 'heard' that one....

Into my teens. But how old i was is irrelevant- if you get a tape from 1981 and hear someone say 'botham is better than Sobers (sic) ' , does that negate the FACT that they said it and you picked it up, even if you wernt born in 1981 ?

And FYI, i said i've heard the MEDIA say hick is the 'new bradman' and that he is 'better than TENDULKAR'.... not better than Bradman....
and we aer talkin about MEDIA hype here....not hyperboles from fans.

 

[tooextracool]

This is my final reply to this thread, as i have better things to do than educate idiots of this planet.

it figures, i guess thats the reason why the teachers at school didnt teach you too.

fundamental contradiction due to erroneous understanding of english.

or rather being foolish to jump out and claim that someone has potential to be great, when hes never done anything of substance in his entire career to date.

I am not gonna repeat myself. I have said what you require to be considered a potential great. read and learn.

even though half of what you've said has been rubbish already?
to have potential to be great the primary requirement is to perform, everything else comes next.

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.

for the last time you have to show something to have potential, which he has done, but to have potential to greatness you have to show some performance. its that simple. you cannot be a miserable bowler and expect to be the next wasim akram.

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.

yes and i still assure you that he doesnt bowl in the mid 80s. show me convincingly that he was bowling at an avg speed in the mid 80s, instead of all your rubbish one over 85 mph crap.

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

exactly, so is this pace bowler that should have been dropped that had a worse average than pathan?

...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.

you mean the all rounders you mentioned in your 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

you really are stupid arent you? ive asked you again and again, who is the pace bowler who was worse than pathan that pathan could have replaced based on averages?

Flintoff was initially picked as a very much bowling allrounder...in anycase, i didnt mention Flintoff, someone else did.

umm you mentioned "Devon Malcolm, Ashley Giles, Phil Tufnell, Eddie Hemmings,Flintoff,Chris Lewis,John Embury,Derek Pringle,Craig White (who averages 37+), Robert Croft, etc etc etc"

but then again with my ESL english class im clearly mistaken.
and with regards to him being a bowling all rounder :
http://plus.cricinfo.com/link_to_da...NEWS/1998/JUL/DEAN_ON_FLINTOFF_20JUL1998.html

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.

except that his average not including games against bangladesh is 43, and thats including his figures in the current game against pakistan. so its 6.

learn mathematics. Pronto.

41. - 37. is not six. it is 4.[/QUOTE]

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.

not exactly, white and lewis were picked because they could bat and bowl, white was unfortunate enough to have his career cut short by injury. malcolm on the other hand while he was mostly poor, had many match turning performances such has his 10 wickets at queens park in 90, his 5/94 and 8 wickets against NZ in the first few tests in 90, his 5/94 against pakistan in 92, his 9/57, his 7 wickets in adelaide, his 6 wickets against SA at the wanderers etc. and i certainly dont think that some of the attacks that lewis and malcolm played in were far better than indias bowling attack.

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.

most commentators across the world new nothing about it until the late 90s, which again doesnt make it impossible for someone from england to be able to bowl it. if gough could do it, why couldnt white? they both played for yorkshire.

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.

umm what? so youre saying that boycott, shastri and cozier are all wrong and you are right? please get a hold of yourself, your making yourself look more and more stupid by the minute.

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.

yes because all those players have said that he has a better inswinger than craig white havent they? please not once have i said that pathan doesnt have a good inswinger, but to say that he has a better inswinger than craig white already who was renowned for his inswinger is outright inane.

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.

and which commentators are these? most of the english commentators on sky sports know what they're talking about, willis, botham,holding etc all know enough about reverse swing.

If you **** me off enough, i will say whatever i want. If you think you can do better, bring it!

no because i've been through that before, and im not interested in being warned by the mods of this forum.

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.

and some of which were written by experts who know something about cricket. i watched enough of craig white to tell you that on my own, but alas my opinion would simply not be good enough for you considering you've ignored boycott's, coziers and shastris.

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.

lets see this article then?

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.

to be fair he did beat sampras once in the masters at cincinati. nonetheless no, not many people expected him to beat sampras but really to say that he couldnt even give sampras a fight at wimbledon is outright stupid. sampras himself has said that henman had what it takes to be a wimbledon champ.

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!

you need to learn to read really. where have i ever said that he doesnt remind people of akram? ive said that harmison reminded people of ambrose(even though i personally dont agree with it) in the exact same way. neither of them are the new ambroses or the new akrams, because neither of them have performed anywhere near as well as those 2, even if harmison has actually looked something like being a really good bowler in certain series.

 

[tooextracool]

I think its something each country is guilty of in some way

Regarding Hick..he actually did look like,for a time, the second coming of Bradman,he was smacking pretty much everyone around for a time (incl. WI)

exactly, every country had hyped up many of their players. tendulkar as ive said a million times is probably the most overrated player ever, considering how people once thought that he was as good as bradman and what not. england overhyped anderson most recently, probably overhyped flintoff- even though he looks more and more likely to live up to the hype and harmison , australia overhyped clarke, NZ overhyped martin etc. most people in the media, have no idea what they are talking about, overhyping someone like anderson was perhaps really the stupidest thing possible given how bad hes turned out to be and i seem to be getting the same feeling about pathan.

 

[tooextracool]

As far as i am concerned he was the most overhyped player EVER to play cricket.......**** poor average of 31 through his career and compared to Bradman during his early years and around 95 some english commentators had the audacity to suggest that he was better than Tendulkar........now thats what i call talkin shyte.

i really wonder what channel you follow cricket on, i really do. or perhaps its just another one of your pathetic attempts of making up something that never happened. no professional commentator has ever mentioned anything of the sort.

 

[C_C]

TEC..do you have msn messenger ?

 

[tooextracool]

with the benefit of hindsight, yes you are right...but back when he was in his pomp,Hick was seen as a saviour of English test cricket..and for once, there was absolutely no reason to doubt that he wouldnt be..for at that time he could destroy even the best bowlers.Unfortunately, he lacked the self belief(that lack of self belief leaked through to affect his actual technique) to succeed in test cricket (he actually turned out to be a great ODI player)..and I say unfortunately for him, for England and for cricket watchers in general, because I think it denied millions the chance to see someone with as much talent with the bat as someone like Lara.

and really he wasnt helped by the management who kept dropping him everytime he had a poor series.

 

[tooextracool]

Not nearly as much Hype as Hick ( afterall, NO ONE has called Irfan the current day Malcolm Marshall and NO ONE said he is better than Wasim Akram like they did with Hick- 'current day Bradman' and 'better than Tendulkar' crap).

But give Irfan 60 tests like Hick and if he has **** poor bowling figures,then he would rank up there as one of the most overhyped...... but passing hick is a nigh impossible job.

hick was overhyped, i'll give you that much. but what exactly has irfan pathan done in domestic cricket to even merit comparison with akram?
at least hick had done something that very few english players in the past had done in domestic cricket, pathan averages 30.5.

 

[tooextracool]

TEC..do you have msn messenger ?

its on my sig.....

 

[Sanz]

Hick was hyped before he had played a single international game. Pathan is hyped but at least after he started playing international cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

because hes accomplished so much at the international level?

 

[honestbharani]

I think Hick was more hyped than Pathan. Maybe it doesn't seem that big to you, TEC, because CW wasn't around at that time.


Also, maybe Pathan seems to be overhyped more than Hick to you because there are more Indians than Englishmen. That stands to reason, a little bit.

 

[Sanz]

No because he has shown potential, many great cricketers past and present have said so, even ICC has acknoledged that and that's why he was named Emerging player of 2004 award. I am not saying this because IRfan plays for India, but because because People like Imran, Kapil, Akram, Ravi Shastri are saying so.

But I thnik I should disregard all that and listen to the greatest experts in Cricket TooExtraCool.

 

[tooextracool]

No because he has shown potential, many great cricketers past and present have said so, even ICC has acknoledged that and that's why he was named Emerging player of 2004 award. I am not saying this because IRfan plays for India, but because because People like Imran, Kapil, Akram, Ravi Shastri are saying so.

But I thnik I should disregard all that and listen to the greatest experts in Cricket TooExtraCool.

im fairly sure that many great cricketers have said that hick had potential to be great too, which was all part and parcel of why he was overhyped, just like pathan is. personally imran and akram(in particular) usually have no idea what they are talking about, the number of times that the both of them have said that inzamam is a better player than tendulkar is really uncountable. there has to be a reason why you should be hyped IMO, not simply because you look good when you bowl, or because you bowl similar to a past great, i wonder how many other bowlers would still have been playing at the international level had they have performed as well as pathan has in international and domestic cricket. hes continued to be mediocre during this series, and one can only wonder how long hes going to have ' this potential to great' tag with him, because as far as im concerned he doesnt deserve it.

 

[tooextracool]

I think Hick was more hyped than Pathan. Maybe it doesn't seem that big to you, TEC, because CW wasn't around at that time.

Also, maybe Pathan seems to be overhyped more than Hick to you because there are more Indians than Englishmen. That stands to reason, a little bit.

perhaps so, maybe hick was hyped up more than pathan, but personally id say that hick at least deserved some of that hype, because his record at the domestic level backed it up and there was a period at the international level(even if it was only a short one) where he looked like living up to some of it.

 

[tooextracool]

In 1988 for Worcs he scored getting on 200 vs WI.

it was actually 172, and what i found extremely surprising when i looked at the scorecard was that it was on a flat wicket, most of the people who talk about that innings seem to make it out to be as though it was on a seamers paradise where he single handedly destroyed the WI.

 

[biased indian]

perhaps so, maybe hick was hyped up more than pathan, but personally id say that hick at least deserved some of that hype, because his record at the domestic level backed it up and there was a period at the international level(even if it was only a short one) where he looked like living up to some of it.

its not pathans fault that he got straight into the team with out playing must FC