silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Hah, compared to the Indian bowlers....
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sajid Mahmood bowls at 92mph ?!
- Thread starter The Masterplan
- Start date
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Okay, but the sentiment is there that he is much quicker in the two aforementioned situations.
The Masterplan
U19 Debutant
Yes
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Simon Jones is a superstar.
Langeveldt
Soutie
No we don't..
T20 as a rule enhances the levels of mediocre players. It's obvious when you look across the board at the best performers... Why have a Rahul Dravid when you can have a Luke Wright in this bastardised non-entity of a game?
He is one of the worst, if not, the worst bowler ever to don an England shirt, so it comes as no surprise to me that he is a great success in T20..
andruid
Cricketer Of The Year
He clearly hates T20 ad surely Luke Wright is not as crap as people want him to be.
Shaggy Alfresco
State Captain
Chris Schofield
Matt79
Global Moderator
In theory... just like communism working.Simon Jones is a superstar.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Who, Wright or Mahmood?
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Because Rahul Dravid is better than Luke Wright in T20.
Woodster
International Captain
There was an element of tongue in cheek with my quip about Mahmood, which you appear to have missesd.
As regards him being one of the worst players to wear an England shirt, I strongly diagree with. Yes he struggled to come to terms early on in his international career, I'm sure he's not the first, but I believe when he gets selected again for England in the future he will be a much improved player from the one you remember.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Setting a random criteria - let's say 1990, starting with the tour of West Indies where we upset all odds, as there truly were some absolute shockers 1984-1989 (Tony Pigott the worst of course). Name me a few who were worse than Mahmood in that time. I can't think of any.
Woodster
International Captain
I have a tendency not to make judgements on a players career after only a few Test matches, where, I believe, a degree of potential has been shown. If at the end of his career, he still only has 8 Tests to his name, it would be fair to say he has far from fulfilled his potential.
I am expecting Mahmood to have success in County cricket this year (admittedly he will need to improve on his Championship performances so far this year) and continue to improve and become a more rounded fast bowler.
So in response, I am not naming names of players who I deem to have been worse players than a mere novice at international level.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I don't generally like to make absolute judgements on a player on a relatively small number of Tests either. I am happy to in Mahmood's case, as I don't believe someone so poor can get all that much better, but that's by the by.
Aside from this, though, even though many people have had a poor few games - even as many as 8 in some cases (let's remind ourselves that Glenn McGrath's first 8 Tests produced the truly superlative figures of 19 wickets from 321.2 overs, thus a strike-rate of 101.4 - with an average of 43.68), very few are as poor as Mahmood has been. He's so far below the class that someone who was picked for Tests needs to be that it's frightening what the selectors were thinking of even considering him in 2006 and 2006/07.
Even if (and it'll take a near-miracle for my money) he does come back an improved bowler and ends-up being Test-class, his initial selection was still a complete shocker and his first 8 games did indeed show him to be worse than anyone who'd played for at least the previous 18 years.
Aside from this, though, even though many people have had a poor few games - even as many as 8 in some cases (let's remind ourselves that Glenn McGrath's first 8 Tests produced the truly superlative figures of 19 wickets from 321.2 overs, thus a strike-rate of 101.4 - with an average of 43.68), very few are as poor as Mahmood has been. He's so far below the class that someone who was picked for Tests needs to be that it's frightening what the selectors were thinking of even considering him in 2006 and 2006/07.
Even if (and it'll take a near-miracle for my money) he does come back an improved bowler and ends-up being Test-class, his initial selection was still a complete shocker and his first 8 games did indeed show him to be worse than anyone who'd played for at least the previous 18 years.
Woodster
International Captain
This will definitely be an agree to disagree debate. In where anything that you say will not convince me that Mahmood does not have the potential to come back a stronger, improved and dangerous quick bowler. I ain't saying he's gonna be the next Ambrose or whatever. Just think he has much more to offer than his earlier Tests.
Equally I don't believe you're in the habit of changing your mind if somebody offers an alternative opinion. Only Mahmood himself will decide the outcome of this one.
Equally I don't believe you're in the habit of changing your mind if somebody offers an alternative opinion. Only Mahmood himself will decide the outcome of this one.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Aye, true.
If Mahmood does manage to come back and end-up Test-class or even close to it, I'll take my hat off to him, as it'll be a transformation pretty much no-one has managed before.
I just want people to realise that whatever happens in future, he was truly awful when he was first picked. Even if to be poor early in your Test career is no disgrace.
If Mahmood does manage to come back and end-up Test-class or even close to it, I'll take my hat off to him, as it'll be a transformation pretty much no-one has managed before.
I just want people to realise that whatever happens in future, he was truly awful when he was first picked. Even if to be poor early in your Test career is no disgrace.
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Saj Mahmood was clearly picked in a policy of picking 90mph bowlers in the thoery that they would support each other and the constant onslaught from the bowlers would result in opposition collapses. Of course, Fletcher's theory has two flaws. It overestimates the effect of support for bowlers with poor FC records and 90mph is too low of a criterion to pick a bowler mainly for pace.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Since 1990 isn't easy, but even then we have Plunkett who's a similar level to Saj. Anderson was similar at the start of his career. Ditto Harmison.
McCague was dire of course.
Thing is, Langers' origainal comment was something along the lines of Saj being the worst ever, so any reference to 80's horror stories like Piggott, Allott, etc is entirely justified, not to mention any of the donkeys who appeared previously.
wpdavid
Hall of Fame Member
Allott wasn't close to being good enough at test level: his average of >40 isn't lying.Allott a horror-story?
Though admittedly, "worst ever" is always rather dodgy ground; "worst since genuine merit selection became the exclusive entity for England selectors" is rather more viable.
tbf though his FC record was probably superior to Mahmood's.
Not sure when you had in mind for your stated criteria. Must be some point prior to WW2 surely?