Best bowling option for Pakistan in WC

[rodzilla1010]

For the opening WC game I would now have

Umar Gul
Rana Naved-ul-Hasan
Rao Iftikar
Azhar Mahmood/Danish Kaneria
Shoaib Malik
Mohammed Hafeez

i would see between Rana and Sami...and yes the choice would be between Danish and Azhar

so the next warm up game will be imp

 

[haroon510]

i don't think pakistan need to play with Specialist spiner when they have allrounders spiners like hafeez, malik and afridi. Azhar has much better record playing in flat pitches and most of the pitches in the world cup would be flat pitches like sharjah where his record is pretty convincing. i would go with rao and Azhar instead of Rana and sami.
if rana has to play he shouldn't be opening the bowling. he should be bowling after 15 or 16 overs.

 

[IndianByHeart]

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.

.

Sorry but players are still judged by averages rather than good game bad game, at the end of a players career ppl look at their averages rather than keep count of good games.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Against India and West Indies, yes.

.

SO ??????? We already knows that the guy doesn't have good record against Aus , eng and SA, so obviously the most good games he's likly to have had is agianst Indians and Wi team.

 

[silentstriker]

Sorry but players are still judged by averages rather than good game bad game, at the end of a players career ppl look at their averages rather than keep count of good games.

And thats why most people are wrong when judging players. Averages are a guide, and an average of 40 vs. an average of 60 is obviously significant, especially when comparing players in similar era. But to conclusively state something like a guy with an average of 54 is better than a guy with an average of 51, especially across eras is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[IndianByHeart]

It does unless they've been brilliant for 100-odd matches against everyone else. Rana hasn't. Warne was.

RUBBISH. If a spinner is great against most of the teams except the one's that plays spin most effectively than he can be looked with suspicion.Warne has good record against all the teams except India and to some extent SL, against players that knew best to handle him.If most of the test paying nation has batsmen that could play spin as well as Indian batsmen do , then that 100 odd number would have shrunk to 20!

 

[IndianByHeart]

And thats why most people are wrong when judging players. Averages are a guide, and an average of 40 vs. an average of 60 is obviously significant, especially when comparing players in similar era. But to conclusively state something like a guy with an average of 54 is better than a guy with an average of 51, especially across eras is absolutely ridiculous.

I know very well that averages don't tell the whole story, my point is that average are useful guide and are most likely to be used rather than the good match/poor match ratio thing.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Now the Bowlers, Rana is still in a miserable form with the new ball, i think if Rana has to play against WI then he should not open the bowling attack. Rao looked more impressive taking wickets and keeping things right. Gul though didnt get greats stats to show for but he kept it tight too. Kaneria and Mahmood still have big question marks hanging over thier heads. With Sami joining the squad soon, it will come down to Rana v.s Sami and with Afridi banned, it will come down to Mahmood v.s Kaneria. The Warm up agianst SA will break a few ties.

.

Rana is struggling badly but still happens to be one of the best bowler at death, Sami is utter rubbish almost of the time.

 

[Richard]

Sorry but players are still judged by averages rather than good game bad game, at the end of a players career ppl look at their averages rather than keep count of good games.

Not true.

How often do you hear people say "averages aren't all" and stuff like that?

Very often.

 

[Richard]

SO ??????? We already knows that the guy doesn't have good record against Aus , eng and SA, so obviously the most good games he's likly to have had is agianst Indians and Wi team.

And that means he can only do well against 2 teams... and he's been decidedly iffy against India, too, veers from the brilliant to the God-awful.

 

[Richard]

RUBBISH. If a spinner is great against most of the teams except the one's that plays spin most effectively than he can be looked with suspicion.Warne has good record against all the teams except India and to some extent SL, against players that knew best to handle him.If most of the test paying nation has batsmen that could play spin as well as Indian batsmen do , then that 100 odd number would have shrunk to 20!

Except it's nowhere near as simple as that, Warne has bowled far worse against India than other teams on more than 1 occasion.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Not true.

How often do you hear people say "averages aren't all" and stuff like that?

Very often.

Yet they use them as the guide, rather than relying on some good/bad game ratio thing

 

[Richard]

No, they don't. They judge people on their performances in games, rather than some sort of blurring of the edges like an average.

 

[IndianByHeart]

And that means he can only do well against 2 teams... and he's been decidedly iffy against India, too, veers from the brilliant to the God-awful.

No it means that he can do wel provided he regains his form.His struggle against SA, Eng and even Canada (in practice match) has more to do with himself than the opposition.If he sorts out his problem, than he's likely to do well against most opposition, if he doesn't then he will have a nightmare against the Indians (hopefully!)

 

[IndianByHeart]

Except it's nowhere near as simple as that, Warne has bowled far worse against India than other teams on more than 1 occasion.

He was made to look worse by the Indian batsmen. India was his test on numerous occasion and he tried his level best to do well but every time he failed, thats the fact he himself never denied.

 

[IndianByHeart]

No, they don't. They judge people on their performances in games, rather than some sort of blurring of the edges like an average.

Performance in a game yes, good game/bad game ratio...no!

 

[Richard]

What do performances in more than 1 game do...? Yes, that's right. They cumulate. You then look at these games, rather than blurring what happens in them.

 

[Richard]

He was made to look worse by the Indian batsmen. India was his test on numerous occasion and he tried his level best to do well but every time he failed, thats the fact he himself never denied.

Not every time at all, Warne's had successful matches against India.

Just because he tried his best doesn't mean he bowled as well as he is capable of doing.

 

[Richard]

No it means that he can do wel provided he regains his form.His struggle against SA, Eng and even Canada (in practice match) has more to do with himself than the opposition.If he sorts out his problem, than he's likely to do well against most opposition, if he doesn't then he will have a nightmare against the Indians (hopefully!)

Except that he's been rubbish far, far more often than not...

 

[rodzilla1010]

Rana is struggling badly but still happens to be one of the best bowler at death, Sami is utter rubbish almost of the time.

I think you are judging him because the influence of his test career over his ODI career, which is not bad, actually better than most bowlers playing in this tournament..avg under 30. Moreover he gives the attack an extra dimension with his pace..if we play Rana,Rao and Gul...we will have all 3 bowlers whose speed ranges is from 82-87mph...Sami can provide the extra 5mph and bowl some quick spells