Turbinator
Cricketer Of The Year
Looks like the futures bright for us!
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/260521.html
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/260521.html
Yea b/c it was a lost cause once India were up 3-0.Xuhaib said:Not taking anything away from the Indians but Pak did not field their strongest team for some reason there was no Jamshed Ahmed, Anwar Ali, Akhter Ayub, Sarfarz Ahmed and a few others who were all part of the WC winning team
They did not feature in any of the matches.Turbinator said:Yea b/c it was a lost cause once India were up 3-0.
Are all these players still Under 19? Or does the ageing system work differently, like if you were Under 19 at the start of the year you can play Under 19 matches all that year?Xuhaib said:Not taking anything away from the Indians but Pak did not field their strongest team for some reason there was no Jamshed Ahmed, Anwar Ali, Akhter Ayub, Sarfarz Ahmed and a few others who were all part of the WC winning team
I believe most of them still are.Perm said:Are all these players still Under 19? Or does the ageing system work differently, like if you were Under 19 at the start of the year you can play Under 19 matches all that year?
Yea maybe thas the reason then.Perm said:Are all these players still Under 19? Or does the ageing system work differently, like if you were Under 19 at the start of the year you can play Under 19 matches all that year?
Not having Jamshed and Anwar bowling for Pakistan was the only disappointment in this tour for me. I still think the Indian u-19 side is superior (and stronger than the side fielded in the WC final) to the best Pakistan u-19 side, but watching those two young guns attack the famed Indian batsmen would have been great fun. Stupid selectorial decision for me ... those two weren't named in the CT prelim squad and now they haven't been named to tour a very strong Indian u-19 side.Xuhaib said:Not taking anything away from the Indians but Pak did not field their strongest team for some reason there was no Jamshed Ahmed, Anwar Ali, Akhter Ayub, Sarfarz Ahmed and a few others who were all part of the WC winning team
I would say it means little (not "nothing") as far a nation's cricketing future is concerned. It certainly shows the kind of talent that's emerging though. With India, u-19 success means less than it would with most teams because India in the past has had a habit of screwing young talent. It seems to be getting better though, with guys like Chawla and VRV getting random exposure only to be sent back to domestic/A-team cricket to develop. These guys haven't been forgotten about like Parthiv Patel was (albeit due to two other strong keepers, and he doesn't seem to have any talent after all, can't even get into double figures these days in domestic cricket), so that's a good sign. India needs to go the Aussie way and let these young talents get 3-4 years in domestic cricket till they start leading the run charts and wicket tallies, instead of bringing them in as soon as they turn in one impressive performance. If they do happen to do that with someone, the selectors have to make sure they don't forget about him just because he was unfairly thrown to the wolves and got owned at a young age.Sanz said:Under 19 success means nothing as far as the future is concerned.
Absolutely. England won the U19 WC in 97/98. That generation of players should be at their peak now. However, if you look at the team from the final, non have gone on to be 'superstars'. In fact a few would be happy for a County contract next season.Sanz said:Under 19 success means nothing as far as the future is concerned.