he was always paul adamish i.e his unique point was his action. Once the novelty went away so did the wickets.Always thought Sohail Tanvir was going to turn out to be a very good test match bowler tbh.
Agree with Migara; always thought Rana had something about him.
yes PEWS rana had a hair transplant
yes PEWS rana had a hair transplant
517/1 where else can i rate them??it is not hate but fact.Bowling is poor for aus except siddle and bollinger.Johnson is bouncy pitch bully imo.Why bother wasting our time when you could be on antiaustraliancricket.com ?
rsa only have steyn.Morky is not proven outside home,lopsy and harris are crap.Eng has better attack that proved itself in hard conditions in ashes.nah SA has a superior attack.
2 drawn series away to Ind.
This Eng attack has to produce in Asia.
Oh and there is a small matter of a test series vs ind in about 6 months time.
Me get's a feeling Cook Trott Swann and Jimmy are going to struggle.
Despisable action. Would rather eat a curry off a baboon's arse than watch that action ever again.Always thought Sohail Tanvir was going to turn out to be a very good test match bowler tbh.
Despisable action. Would rather eat a curry off a baboon's arse than watch that action ever again.
Like in that of Procotrs
Quite a delicacy in some cultures, I've been told.
Made this post a year ago; plenty disagreed with it. I'm pretty happy with it still. Malinga retiring and Kula never being selected makes things different for Sri Lanka though but aside from sliding them down to 8 I don't think I'd change that much.I've got into trouble expressing my opinion of bowling attacks on here by people completely misinterpreting my position, but it's probably my fault for not making it completely clear, so I'm going to post two completely different lists in this post.
Here's how I think the bowling attacks of each country have performed over the last 2-3 years:
1. South Africa
2. England
3. Australia
4. Pakistan
5. India
6. Sri Lanka
7. New Zealand
8. West Indies
9. Bangladesh
And now for the more interesting part of my post, I'm going to rate the current attacks in terms of quality, moving forward over the next year or two, predictively. I'm ignoring team results and looking at player quality within attacks - I've also taken players with fitness problems into account. I'm not even going to use team names because it'll give the impression that I actually care about past team results in this analysis.
1. Anderson, Broad, Tremlett and Swann
2. Steyn, Morkel, Tsotsobe, Kallis and Harris/Botha/Tahir
3. Bollinger/Harris, Siddle, Johnson, Watson and Beer/Harris/Hilfenhaus/Smith
4. Zaheer/Sharma, Sreesanth, Harbhajan, Ohja/Sharma/Unadkat and Sehwag
5. Gul, Tanvir, Wahab, Rehman, Younis and Hafeez
6. Any two of: Malinga/Lakmal/Fernando/Kulasekara/Prasad, plus one of Herath/Mendis, plus another one of any mentioned, plus Mathews and Dilshan
7. Roach, Taylor/Edwards/Russell/Pascal, Sammy, Bravo, Benn and Gayle
8. Martin, Southee, Arnel, Vettori and Williamson
9. Mashrafe/Shahadat/Rubel, Shafiul, Shahadat/Rubel/Razzak, Shakib and Mahmudullah
So basically I've swapped England and South Africa because they've brought in Tremlett; I've swapped India and Pakistan because Pakistan have lost an entire bowling attack, and I've swapped West Indies and New Zealand because I think West Indies bowlers have improved a bit and I rate Russell potentially. New Zealand have also lost O'Brien in that time.
Pattinson, Harris, Siddle, Lyon and Watson.Hmm... what is Australia's best attack atm, given all fit?
Think WI should get a bump up, Rampaul's been a real surprise this last year.
So basically through pure chance and horrible "luck" we've ended up playing our best attack (sans Watson) for this series anyway (first two Tests anyway)Pattinson, Harris, Siddle, Lyon and Watson.
Harris will never actually be properly fit though which makes it a bit irrelevant; I don't really have a problem with Hilfenhaus playing ahead of him based on that now, or even Cummins. I'd have Bollinger right in the mix as well but that's just not going to happen so I give up basically; might as well re-start my Chris Rogers bandwagon.
I think I agree, but I'm not really sure now given Hilf's impressive comeback. Would be tempted to think at this stage Pattinson, Harris, Hilf and Lyon could be our best combination. Pattinson, Harris and Siddle are all a tad too similar for my liking. Then of course, there is Cummins, but it's hard to gauge just how good he is/how ready he is after one match. Definately a very good problem to have though.Pattinson, Harris, Siddle, Lyon and Watson.