Faisal1985
International Vice-Captain
Think i would agree after the recent performances or lack of them.
i understand where your coming from and cant disagree w/ what you said but i reckon nz batting lineup has enough fragile players (mcintosh/watling/guptill who have similar averages to shakib) to have a re jink and then accomodate shakib who would be a better pure batsmen for u guys as he would have better players around him and less individual pressure....hence i said maybe. I think as a pure batsmen, Shakib has a similar level of potential to guptill at TEST level.Shakib wouldn't make it as a pure batsman in New Zealand's Test side at the moment, Taylor, Ryder, Williamson has given our middle order a little more backbone. Tamim would easily get in. Shakib would struggle to usurp Vettori's spot but would be the second spinner by a hundred miles.
he would have at least held up an end as effectively as swann and prevented run leakage which was a major problem for you guys in brisbane 2nd innings, adeladie and melbourne. Also he would have become a wicket taking threat in adelaide on a turner and would have i feel done better than swann at perth because he's dangerous when he can utilise bounce.I don't rate Shakib as a Test match bowler, wouldn't have made any difference if he was playing for us in the current Ashes series.
Rubbish.I don't rate Shakib as a Test match bowler, wouldn't have made any difference if he was playing for us in the current Ashes series.
Shakib is not a top order batsman. May not be accustomed to batting in those positions.i understand where your coming from and cant disagree w/ what you said but i reckon nz batting lineup has enough fragile players (mcintosh/watling/guptill who have similar averages to shakib) to have a re jink and then accomodate shakib who would be a better pure batsmen for u guys as he would have better players around him and less individual pressure....hence i said maybe. I think as a pure batsmen, Shakib has a similar level of potential to guptill at TEST level.
Referring to only this part of the post, when would he have made a difference? Only real time was probably Brisbane, if he could've gotten us a few wickets in England's second innings.Rubbish.
i didnt say he'd have made a major difference at melbourne, but that leaking runs was a big problem for u guys there and he'd have applied more of a squeeze to england's run rate.Referring to only this part of the post, when would he have made a difference? Only real time was probably Brisbane, if he could've gotten us a few wickets in England's second innings.
Adelaide and Melbourne, the problems was with the batting.
He is a better bowling option than any yet fielded by Australia, so you can't measure him on what the other Australian spinners did. If Shakib was playing match situations could have markedly changed by having a quality attacking spin bowler putting pressure on the English.Referring to only this part of the post, when would he have made a difference? Only real time was probably Brisbane, if he could've gotten us a few wickets in England's second innings.
Adelaide and Melbourne, the problems was with the batting.
I'm not saying that I don't rate him (I still haven't seen a huge amount, TBF, esp. in Tests) but my point is that, for all the talk about it, the spinner - for all the talk about it - hasn't lost us a Test. You can put the Tests lost down to batting, the scoreboard pressure that hasn't been applied has had an enormous consequence on the series.He is a better bowling option than any yet fielded by Australia, so you can't measure him on what the other Australian spinners did. If Shakib was playing match situations could have markedly changed by having a quality attacking spin bowler putting pressure on the English.
Reckon that means you know bugger all about Shakib tbh.I can't see Shakib being an improvement to Doherty tbh, especially on the flat day 4/5 Gabba pitch.
Yeah, it surely would have assisted. I think in the end though, the only tangible difference that could have been made would have been giving us a chance at a freak win in Adelaide and maybe getting a few breakthroughs in Brisbane in the 2nd innings.I just think it's rubbish to suggest that a better spinner wouldn't have possibly assisted Australia in this series. Though I can see where you are coming from, his inclusion wouldn't have solved all of Australia's problems and may not have changed any match outcomes.
Well, it's a better measure of one's ability to do well on Australian pitches than Test cricket in Bangladesh. Australia play half their games at home; he'd definitely need to prove himself within the system. He wouldn't just waltz into the side. The legion of people who don't rate Hughes fail to see that he's being picked because the selectors do rate him; there are other players being overlooked.Wait, so Shield cricket is a better measure of an opener's skill than Test cricket? I don't think Tamim would get into the side ahead of Katich, who I respect very much as an accomplished Test cricketer, but I think he is far more talent than Hughes, and has been in much better form in internationals.