smash84
The Tiger King
No, it used to be an ODI tournamentSorry to show my ignorance, but in the beginning was the Asia Cup a test series at first. I know times have changed...
No, it used to be an ODI tournamentSorry to show my ignorance, but in the beginning was the Asia Cup a test series at first. I know times have changed...
No, Asia Cup was always an ODI tournament. You are probably confusing it with the Asian Test Championship which was trialled in 1999, I think.Sorry to show my ignorance, but in the beginning was the Asia Cup a test series at first. I know times have changed...
Are you talking about Nawaz? I thought I was the only one who thought his action looked a bit suspect.Some of these Pakistani actions...hmm
Consider that Pakistan is missing Afridi and Rauf and Sri Lanka missing Chameera and Kumara, it is basically even stevens. All six bowlers are pretty damn quick too.Dude, relax. India were missing bumrah and Patel, their main bowlers. It's really not time for wholesale changes.
For what it's worth, this is not the most bizarre bit of reasoning I've ever read.When Babar and Rizwan are 15 (15), they are under no pressure to slog because they know that the 15 (15) will eventually turn into 50 (35) because they have time on their side, but because of these two, everyone else in the team is forced to slog like a mad man and frankly none of them are talented enough to make it worse consistently.
This duo has made life very difficult for the likes of Fakhar, Asif, Khushdil, Nawaz etc. Nawaz played a blinder the other day but he was forced to slog from ball one because Rizwan was not going to take initiative and luckily for Nawaz, it paid off for him.
On another day, he holes out for 10 (4) and then he gets bashed while Rizwan is praised for “holding the fort”.
People justify Rizwan and Babar because it is their role to play anchor but you can only have one anchor and playing anchor in T20s is much easier than playing the aggressor because you have a bigger margin for error and you can justify a 50 (35) or a 70 (50) but the aggressor has to regularly score 50 (25) to justify his selection.
I can still give some time to his cricketing logic but seriously accusing a guy of faking serious illness or his religious belief for PR points speaks of an individual who has some personal vendetta more then anything else.For what it's worth, this is not the most bizarre bit of reasoning I've ever read.
Everyone has to dislike some player or another for something. If we're not going to have personal opinions we might as well redirect the site to Statsguru and be done with it. I'm sure you're not claiming to be a fan of every player out there - there's bound to be some player you don't prefer for some reason or the other.I can still give some time to his cricketing logic but seriously accusing a guy of faking serious illness or his religious belief for PR points speaks of an individual who has some personal vendetta more then anything else.
Everyone has to dislike some player or another for something. If we're not going to have personal opinions we might as well redirect the site to Statsguru and be done with it. I'm sure you're not claiming to be a fan of every player out there - there's bound to be some player you don't prefer for some reason or the other.