Except economy rate doesn't tell the true story, how many runs were scored by the batsmen of Naveed bowling that were not there but fielders made it possible!!!
Very good point. With a fielding side including Kaneria, Razzaq and Yousaf and lead by Inzi, economy doesnt mean too much rather you need a bowler who will get wicket either by bowled, LBW or catch behind the stumps (keeper or slip). Thus Pakistan last resort are bowlers like Ws, Rana (with old ball), Akhtar, or Asif (relying on slip and keeper).
No, he's performed abysmally against SA and poorly against Aus and Eng (the fact that others have done something similar is no excuse), poorly against NZ in his 1 game and poorly (whatever the overall bowling-average suggests) against SL.
That might be fine if the rate was, say, 4.5-an-over, but 5.5-an-over would need one hell of a lot of terrible fielding to happen.
Eng, SA and Aus.. agreed, as for nz , it was just one match, its a norm that one can't judge a player on the basis of one match.And his bowling average against Lanka suggest it was good, particularly when we keep in mind that matches were played mostly on flat pitches.
When the worst fielder in the team is the keeper itself, when the weakest area (of the full strength ) team is its fielding, then it is certainly a very terrible fielding team.
That doesn't matter, he's still done poorly on all bar 1 occasion.
His average is healthy against Lanka, and that all the matters.Warne( who is regraded as greatest spinner in the world) has very poor record against India and SL!! I'm sure though if he had played just one poor match against India, ppl wouldn't have ever pointed to that
NO, its not assumption.Its very difficult to say how many runs were gifted to batsmen when a partcular bowler was bowling, but there is no doubt that every Pakistani bowler suffered at the hands of their fielder.
It's not all that matters - average can sometimes be misleading. What's more important is number-of-good-games and number-of-poor-games.
Over a career, yes, but not in every single game the way you're suggesting.
NUmber of good games...LOL, a player is judge by average, averages are part of record, no one keep count of number of good games.
Err, what? Good games : poor games ratios are a far better way to judge a player than by average, average is too easily skewed as this Rana-vs-SL case so obviously shows. Any fool can keep count of number of good games and poor ones, all you need to do is look at the scorecards for the games concerned, which in this day and age requires no more than a mouse-click or six.
Against India and West Indies, yes.
It does unless they've been brilliant for 100-odd matches against everyone else. Rana hasn't. Warne was.
