India Or Pakistan

[tooextracool]

Isn't that what we are discussing? I am not saying he is a great now. WE are still talking about POTENTIAL.

and im saying that to get hyped up to greatness, you have to have performed at some point in time. pathan clearly hasnt.

 

[C_C]

and im saying that to get hyped up to greatness, you have to have performed at some point in time. pathan clearly hasnt.

You fail to understand the basic definition of potential. Have you ever taken physics and know the concept of Potential energy and kinetic energy for eg. ? Cricketing potential is much in the same essence.....performance is not a requisite for having potential...it merely is a matter of fulfilling(or not fulfilling or exceeding) your potential.

And yes, Bangladesh is getting better...they performed decently in AUS for a side of their stature and will only improve.... infact, bangladesh's performance is no worse than turn-of-the-century performances from RSA (who were the bangladesh of their time), NZ, SL etc.

i see no reason for this criticism of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe...and if we are to leave out statistics against bangladesh, we should do the same for pre-war RSA, NZ till the late 60s , SL till mid 90s etc.

 

[tooextracool]

You fail to understand the basic definition of potential. Have you ever taken physics and know the concept of Potential energy and kinetic energy for eg. ? Cricketing potential is much in the same essence.....performance is not a requisite for having potential...it merely is a matter of fulfilling(or not fulfilling or exceeding) your potential..

you fail to understand the difference between having potential to be a good bowler and having potential be great. you cannot skip the former if you average in the mid 40s in tests and 30 in FC cricket.

And yes, Bangladesh is getting better...they performed decently in AUS for a side of their stature and will only improve.... infact, bangladesh's performance is no worse than turn-of-the-century performances from RSA (who were the bangladesh of their time), NZ, SL etc.

i see no reason for this criticism of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe...and if we are to leave out statistics against bangladesh, we should do the same for pre-war RSA, NZ till the late 60s , SL till mid 90s etc.

yes obviously we should, whats wrong with you? whether or not bangladesh is capable of being test class in the future is irrelevant. the fact is that they are not test class now, hence performances against them cannot be counted until they become test class.
and as ive said earlier, they certainly didnt do anything brilliant in australia, they still got hammered by an innings in both games. they simply performed better than the standards that certain people expected- such as beating them in a day, which was fairly obvious was not going to happen.

 

[C_C]

you fail to understand the difference between having potential to be a good bowler and having potential be great. you cannot skip the former if you average in the mid 40s in tests and 30 in FC cricket.

No you cannot skip that but like i said, potential is NOT justified with performance as there are many cricketers who had the POTENTIAL to be great but wernt even good.....

You seek to justify potential with performance which is a fundamentally flawed concept.
One may or maynot lead to the other.....the 'may or maynot' factor is why you cannot use performance to guage potential....because many players had the potential to be great but wernt/arnt....and that is because they failed to translate their potential into performance.....

yes obviously we should, whats wrong with you? whether or not bangladesh is capable of being test class in the future is irrelevant. the fact is that they are not test class now, hence performances against them cannot be counted until they become test class.

So should everytime a country flounder, their test class be revoked ?
Should WI now have their test class revoked ?
what should be the criterias to revokation/reinstatement ?
And like i said - if you are willing to discard records against BD/ZIM, do likewise for RSA,NZ, SL etc from the appropriate time periods...and i think IND qualifies too for a short period.....for they were all BD/ZIM of their days.

 

[tooextracool]

No you cannot skip that but like i said, potential is NOT justified with performance as there are many cricketers who had the POTENTIAL to be great but wernt even good......

no they has never been a case. there have been players who have had the potential to be great and have ended up being good, otherwise it would be stupid to say that they had the potential to be great ITFP.

You seek to justify potential with performance which is a fundamentally flawed concept..

no its not, fact is that if someone had the potential to be great, he would actually be performing, because to make people think that you might be great, you have to be good ITFP. has irfan done something to suggest that hes good?no, how can you convince me or anyone else that he has this 'potential to be great' then?

So should everytime a country flounder, their test class be revoked ?
Should WI now have their test class revoked ?
what should be the criterias to revokation/reinstatement ?
And like i said - if you are willing to discard records against BD/ZIM, do likewise for RSA,NZ, SL etc from the appropriate time periods...and i think IND qualifies too for a short period.....for they were all BD/ZIM of their days

because ive said that have i? ive said that b'desh is not test class and since they've shown 0% improvement, they dont deserve to be playing tests. and they never deserved to have got test staus when they did, because they were complete and utter garbage in ODIs and still are. kenya were the only team that deserved test status, but had they played they still wouldnt have been test class. if you asked me if zimbabwe or SL deserved test status in the 90s, id say yes, because even though they werent test class they always looked like they were improving.....theres a difference.
and YES how many times do i have to tell you that performances against teams that werent test class shouldnt be counted, irrespective of how good the teams turned out to be. so in short performances against zim and SL pre 94 or so shouldnt counted, just like performances against india, SA pre 1950 shouldnt be counted.

 

[C_C]

no they has never been a case. there have been players who have had the potential to be great and have ended up being good, otherwise it would be stupid to say that they had the potential to be great ITFP.

Disagree....Mohammed Zahid had potential to be GREAT....he ended up not being even good.... same with Sivaramakrishnan....had all the deliveries in the book and great flight but wasnt even good let alone great......
Klusener had the potential to be a great test bowler but ended up being not even a good one....

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the qualifications for a great POTENTIAL.

 

[tooextracool]

Disagree....Mohammed Zahid had potential to be GREAT....he ended up not being even good.... same with Sivaramakrishnan....had all the deliveries in the book and great flight but wasnt even good let alone great......
Klusener had the potential to be a great test bowler but ended up being not even a good one...

none of them did. they all had the potential to be very good bowlers but they ended up being mediocre ones. NOONE can skip potential to be good and go directly to potential to being great, otherwise it would refute the purpose of 'potential to be good' and everyone who you think has potential basically has potential to greatness, which is really ludicrous.

 

[C_C]

You clearly havnt watched Zahid or Shiva bowl to think that....
And no...potential to be good is exclusive of potential to be great....you can have potential to be great but screw up so bad that you dont even become good....

 

[tooextracool]

so whats the qualification that separates a potential to be good from potential to be great then?
ive watched them both bowl, and it doesnt matter how good they look, its them having at least a few good performances to suggest that they might be great.

 

[C_C]

having more potential....aka worldclass potential....
I watched Zahid and he was DEFINATELY alltime great potential....bowled at 95-96mph zone , had a vicious awayswinger, yorker and a bouncer that was made to terrorise.....anyone who makes Brian Lara and Carl Hooper rush through their strokes and fish around hopelessly is an AWESOME talent.......he made the kiwi batsmen look like a buncha ninnys in a tour game and he was easily as venomous as Donald if not more and even made a young and fast Akhtar look distinctively slow in that day and age ( 97-98 period).... however he suffered severe back injuries and was discarded by PCB instead of rehabilitating him...had he a full career, i think he would've been very likely to be a great.

he reminded me a lot of pre-injury Ian Bishop and Bishop was another one who could've been great if it wasnt for injury.....in the late 80s/90-91 he was the most venomous and hostile bowler of all and trumping Ambrose is saying something......infact many WI fans picked Bishop to get 400 wickets @20+change instead of Ambrose......he was simply THAT good. but back injury ruined his career as well.

 

[Swervy]

he reminded me a lot of pre-injury Ian Bishop and Bishop was another one who could've been great if it wasnt for injury.....in the late 80s/90-91 he was the most venomous and hostile bowler of all and trumping Ambrose is saying something......infact many WI fans picked Bishop to get 400 wickets @20+change instead of Ambrose......he was simply THAT good. but back injury ruined his career as well.

I agree about Bishop..he really could have been a great...who know how the WI would have done in the 90's with Bishop in full flow

 

[Sanz]

"He is the best batsman against fast bowling I have seen after West Indian Viv Richards," said Imran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/1965877.stm

Totally unnecessary link and post, how does it mean that "Inzamam is better than Richards ". Are you saying that being the 'best after Viv Richards' and being 'Better than Richards' mean same to you ??

Your second link was unnecessary as well, I have always accepted that Imran believes Inzamam as a better player.

 

[Sanz]

none of them did. they all had the potential to be very good bowlers but they ended up being mediocre ones. NOONE can skip potential to be good and go directly to potential to being great, otherwise it would refute the purpose of 'potential to be good' and everyone who you think has potential basically has potential to greatness, which is really ludicrous.

Dude, Did you watch Shiva or Md. Zahid Bowl ? Vinod Kambli had the potential to be great as well.

 

[tooextracool]

having more potential....aka worldclass potential.....

thats the most ludicrous thing ive ever heard. theres no such thing as a bowler with world class potential whos a miserable failure in intl and domestic cricket. as ive said countless times,you cant say that someone has more potential than another simply because he looks good when he bowls. fact is that if someone has world class potential while another simply has potential, you'd expect the person with world class potential to be performing at least something at the test match level, otherwise it would refute the point about potential ITFP.

I watched Zahid and he was DEFINATELY alltime great potential....bowled at 95-96mph zone , had a vicious awayswinger, yorker and a bouncer that was made to terrorise.....anyone who makes Brian Lara and Carl Hooper rush through their strokes and fish around hopelessly is an AWESOME talent.......he made the kiwi batsmen look like a buncha ninnys in a tour game and he was easily as venomous as Donald if not more and even made a young and fast Akhtar look distinctively slow in that day and age ( 97-98 period).... however he suffered severe back injuries and was discarded by PCB instead of rehabilitating him...had he a full career, i think he would've been very likely to be a great..

no he had the potential to be a very good bowler,but the fact that he was a failure in both tests and ODIs would suggest that he didnt have potential to greatness, because he obviously had many weaknesses

he reminded me a lot of pre-injury Ian Bishop and Bishop was another one who could've been great if it wasnt for injury.....in the late 80s/90-91 he was the most venomous and hostile bowler of all and trumping Ambrose is saying something......infact many WI fans picked Bishop to get 400 wickets @20+change instead of Ambrose......he was simply THAT good. but back injury ruined his career as well.

what does bishop have to do with all this? yes bishop had the potential to be an all time great, but unlike pathan and all the others he did, because HE PERFORMED. his average even if you include the disappointing end of his career still stands at 24. obviously there was potential for him to be great. pathan's average is rising game by game.

 

[tooextracool]

Totally unnecessary link and post, how does it mean that "Inzamam is better than Richards ". Are you saying that being the 'best after Viv Richards' and being 'Better than Richards' mean same to you ??.

actually im saying that you cant read, because not once did i claim that imran said that inzy was better than richards. it was something that you modified to suit yourself. my point (which you've so conveniently ignored) is that imran has made stupid statements in the past, and youd have to be foolish to think that inzamam was the best player of pace since richards, especially when you look at his average against the top pace bowling teams. why are we supposed to take his comments about pathan seriously?

Your second link was unnecessary as well, I have always accepted that Imran believes Inzamam as a better player.

so hes right then is he? or should we now say that only akram's views on potential can be termed correct? you claimed that pathan has potential to be great because people like imran etc said he does, im saying that imran has made similar stupid claims in the past, hence theres no way anyone should take this one seriously. if only i could find an article of the interview where wasim calls inzamam a better player than sachin, and i'd prove you wrong even further.

 

[tooextracool]

Dude, Did you watch Shiva or Md. Zahid Bowl ?

ive watched a small part of the both of them. and as ive said time and time again, you cant have potential to be great simply by looking good when you bowl. they obviously had weaknesses hence the both of them only had one half decent series in their entire career.

Vinod Kambli had the potential to be great as well.

except, like it or not kambli performed at the intl level to deserve that claim. he still averages over 50 at the test match level, while pathan nearly averages the same except its with the ball.

 

[Sanz]

actually im saying that you cant read, because not once did i claim that imran said that inzy was better than richards.

Okay even If I agree that I made a little mistake this is what you said "such as inzy being as good as richards and being the best player of fast bowlers hes seen since richards and what not."

Please tell me that where Imran said that Inzi is as good as richards.

And you yourself believe that Tendulkar is the most ever rated player ever then how come you are ridiculing Imran's statement. Have you changed your mind or it is just a temporary deviation to win the argument.

 

[Sanz]

except, like it or not kambli performed at the intl level to deserve that claim. he still averages over 50 at the test match level, while pathan nearly averages the same except its with the ball.

What a fool you are, What is Pathan's International avg. ??

And did you know the kind of International bowlers Kambli faced for most of his runs ?

let me know how many of them were truly international Class bowlers :- John Embury, Phil Tufnell, Defreitas, Chris lewis, Hick, Salisbury, Jarvis, Brandes, Ranchod, Traicos, DH Brain, Omarshah, Wickremsinghe, Hathrusinghe, Liyanage, Gurusinghe, Warnaweera, Kalpage, Muralitharan of 94 (1 match) and Ranatunga ?

Count all those innings out and then calculate Kambli's avg.

 

[tooextracool]

Okay even If I agree that I made a little mistake this is what you said "such as inzy being as good as richards and being the best player of fast bowlers hes seen since richards and what not."

Please tell me that where Imran said that Inzi is as good as richards.

ok so he didnt say that he was as good as richards, but certainly even you would have to admit that thats the most ludicrous claim possible, to say that hes the best player of pace bowling since richards, which is precisely my point, hes certainly overhyped players in the past.

And you yourself believe that Tendulkar is the most ever rated player ever then how come you are ridiculing Imran's statement. Have you changed your mind or it is just a temporary deviation to win the argument.

umm, ive said that tendulkar is the most overrated player ever, but please, show me where ive ever said that tendulkar is completely useless in either form of the game. ive always claimed even amongst all those is tendulkar an FTB threads that tendulkar has always been a very good batsman but is not an all time great. just because i say that hes overrated, it doesnt mean that hes a disgrace and a worse player than inzy. ive said time and time again that inzy is overrated too, hence i rate tendulkar above inzy, but neither of them are great in my mind. and if you look carefully, imran khan in his statement claimed that inzy was a better player than tendulkar in ODIs, now i dont know about you, but really, there is such a huge gap between tendulkar and inzy in ODIs, that his claim is laughable.

 

[tooextracool]

What a fool you are, What is Pathan's International avg. ??:

how many times do we have to go thro this? do you not understand that averages should only be looked at against test class oppositon? his average not including the series against b'desh stands at 45.5 ATM.

And did you know the kind of International bowlers Kambli faced for most of his runs ?

let me know how many of them were truly international Class bowlers :- John Embury, Phil Tufnell, Defreitas, Chris lewis, Hick, Salisbury, Jarvis, Brandes, Ranchod, Traicos, DH Brain, Omarshah, Wickremsinghe, Hathrusinghe, Liyanage, Gurusinghe, Warnaweera, Kalpage, Muralitharan of 94 (1 match) and Ranatunga ?

Count all those innings out and then calculate Kambli's avg.

why? tufnell,defreitas, lewis etc may have been poor bowlers but they were certainly far far better than bangladesh bowlers ATM. fact is the same thing can be done with bowlers around the world today, because about 70% of them are very poor bowlers. the thing is bangladesh is significantly worse, hence performances against them dont count at all. and i didnt claim that kambli was even a good player at the international level, just that after his first few series, he at least looked like he may have had potential to greatness, pathan has been rubbish.