***Official*** India in Pakistan

[Xuhaib]

Rana is hard working but i feel he is overrated as well.

I think Pakistan is looking for a holding role from one of its seamers and for that job there is no one better then Razaq atm.

 

[Prince EWS]

Rana is hard working but i feel he is overrated as well.

I think Pakistan is looking for a holding role from one of its seamers and for that job there is no one better then Razaq atm.

But why drop Rana for Asif?

That's the million dollar question - not one of balance or negative tactics etc etc.

 

[Sanz]

in case you did not notice it was because india went with 5 bowlers. make sure you send ganguly a card on valentine's day

Five Bowlers or 11 bowlers..shows how much Dravid trusts his openers to deliver.

 

[Pratters]

Here is a page around which I argued the case of five bowlers for India before the first test http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?p=683902&highlight=india+bowlers#post683902. I am pretty happy with the decision.

 

[marc71178]

Pretty happy that they've got Dhoni at 6 and have allowed Pakistan 380-4 on the first day?

 

[Pratters]

Pretty happy that they've got Dhoni at 6 and have allowed Pakistan 380-4 on the first day?

When did I say that Marc. If that is the criteria, India has chosen 5 bowlers and is doing better than in the first test.

 

[Pratters]

The idea of 5 bowlers isnt as ludicrous as some people have made it sound on the forum. To win a test match the first thing you have to do is take 20 wickets. India definitely improves its chances of doing that taking 5 bowlers compared to 4 regardless of match situations.

Of course you have to make more runs than your opposition to win a test match. But no matter how many runs you make, you cannot win until you do not take 20 wickets. What should India back themselves to do more? Their 4 bowlers to take 20 wickets on foreign soil or their famed batting line up to click?

The second option seems much more logical to me.

 

[Pratters]

Can you please explain to me how that necessarily becomes the case?

Cos he satisfies your clauses.

 

[luckyeddie]

Cos he satisfies your clauses.

You quoted Wikipedia.

I said "I've heard it (Wikipedia) described as the encyclopedia written by idiots for idiots."

You said "So Hakon is an Idiot"

I said "Can you please explain to me how that necessarily becomes the case?"

Which clauses of mine does Hakon satisfy? I'm really struggling to work out what it is you're saying.

 

[Pratters]

You quoted Wikipedia.

I said "I've heard it (Wikipedia) described as the encyclopedia written by idiots for idiots."

You said "So Hakon is an Idiot"

I said "Can you please explain to me how that necessarily becomes the case?"

Which clauses of mine does Hakon satisfy? I'm really struggling to work out what it is you're saying.

And you cannot work out Hakon writes and reads Wiki by that? Guess who the idiot is.

 

[PAKMAN]

But why drop Rana for Asif?

That's the million dollar question - not one of balance or negative tactics etc etc.

I dont mind aasif being in the squad he has been performing well against the touring sides in practice matches ,and it sounds much better when u say aasif for sami

 

[luckyeddie]

And you cannot work out Hakon writes and reads Wiki by that? Guess who the idiot is.

YOU quoted Wikipedia to me - I'll leave you to work out the rest.

How many guesses do I get?

 

[Pratters]

YOU quoted Wikipedia to me - I'll leave you to work out the rest.

How many guesses do I get?

You suggesting people who read and write for wikipedia are idiots when there are intellegent people who do the same (Hakon for example) shows the flaw in your statement.

 

[luckyeddie]

You suggesting people who read and write for wikipedia are idiots when there are intellegent people who do the same (Hakon for example) shows the flaw in your statement.

Since Wikipedia started up 5 or 6 years ago, there have been MANY people who have described it exactly as I quoted. The references are easily found.

The fact that people say something doesn't necessarily make it true - it doesn't matter how many times a lie is told, it doesn't make it a truth.

I NEVER said "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for idiots" - I said "I've HEARD it described as such". For goodness sake, there are famous references of Wikipedia being used as a source for the correction of Britannica.

 

[Pratters]

I read your post again.

I misunderstood you.

 

[luckyeddie]

I read your post again.

I misunderstood you.

It's OK.

Now getting back to cricket, it's stating the obvious but India look to be in a bit of a mess. Saying that, a couple of quick wickets tomorrow morning and they just might run through Pakistan.

However, coming in on day two to bowl to Inzy and Shahid Afridi when both have half-centuries sounds to me like someone's worst nightmare. Big first hour or it's going to be hard work to stay in the contest.

 

[JustTool]

Another mature reaction by Kolkatans who are supposedly Ganguly fans

Another mature reaction by Kolkatans who are supposedly Ganguly fans:

Former skipper Sourav Ganguly's exclusion from the team in the Faisalabad Test has once again triggered protests with his fans burning an effigy of coach Greg Chappell in Kolkata.

 

[luckyeddie]

Another mature reaction by Kolkatans who are supposedly Ganguly fans:

Former skipper Sourav Ganguly's exclusion from the team in the Faisalabad Test has once again triggered protests with his fans burning an effigy of coach Greg Chappell in Kolkata.

Perhaps they were just trying to stay warm?

 

[pskov]

Since Wikipedia started up 5 or 6 years ago, there have been MANY people who have described it exactly as I quoted. The references are easily found.

The fact that people say something doesn't necessarily make it true - it doesn't matter how many times a lie is told, it doesn't make it a truth.

I NEVER said "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for idiots" - I said "I've HEARD it described as such". For goodness sake, there are famous references of Wikipedia being used as a source for the correction of Britannica.

As an aside, independant studies have shown Wikipedia to be just as accurate as Britannica and most articles on Wikipedia are far longer and more detailed than those in Britannica.

 

[pskov]

I haven't been watching any of the test, but is the pitch as lifeless as the one in the first test? Or did India bowl crap/Pakistan bat well?