***Official*** India in West Indies

[adharcric]

I suggest never go with only 2 seamers again?

only outside of india

 

[silentstriker]

Look at how he bowled in the spell right before lunch.
Don't be ridiculous and say he wasn't bowling well.

No one is even saying he is a good bowler or that he's consistent. All that is being said is that he bowled well right before lunch. I await your justification otherwise.

Nope, no justification. He did bowl well before lunch. He also bowled well yesterday morning. I never said otherwise. And I've said multiple times when he's bowled well. Just look at my last twenty posts and you'll see me complimenting him SEVERAL times. But my original point was that Indian bowlers stink overall and do not have the firepoert to take twenty wickets. Thats it.

 

[silentstriker]

Wow look at that rain, 3 test matches will end in 0-0 draw. This is why people don't like test matches. It all depends on the last match.

 

[adharcric]

Anyone think we'll have a result?

 

[luckyeddie]

Wow look at that rain, 3 test matches will end in 0-0 draw. This is why people don't like test matches. It all depends on the last match.

Correction - this is why you don't like test matches.

 

[adharcric]

Correction - this is why you don't like test matches.

Yeah ... and this is why people don't like rain - when it comes to cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

Correction - this is why you don't like test matches.

Correction - This is why a lot of people don't like test matches. I like them just fine.

 

[Dasa]

Correction - This is why a lot of people don't like test matches. I like them just fine.

Which people?

 

[silentstriker]

Which people?

Many of the thousands of people who come to watch ODI's but not tests, or watch ODI's on TV but not tests. Most of my friends and family, just as an anecdotal example. Australia and England are an exception to this, as Tests are more popular there.

 

[Jono]

Nope, no justification. He did bowl well before lunch. He also bowled well yesterday morning. I never said otherwise. And I've said multiple times when he's bowled well. Just look at my last twenty posts and you'll see me complimenting him SEVERAL times. But my original point was that Indian bowlers stink overall and do not have the firepoert to take twenty wickets. Thats it.

FFS! HE'S 22!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You'll be able to count the number of bowlers with your fingers that were bowling consistently brilliant at 22. Give him time, he's shown a hell of a lot of promise at his age.

Just take a long hard look at your posts Silent, and realise that you are irritating everyone!

And in regards to your "India were never going to take 20 wickets" claim, you know damn well they in the first 2 test matches they bowled brilliantly on flat tracks. 19 wickets in the first, and 17 in the 2nd despite missing a whole day due to rain!

 

[silentstriker]

You'll be able to count the number of bowlers with your fingers that were bowling consistently brilliant at 22. Give him time, he's shown a hell of a lot of promise at his age.

So when he's bowling consistently brilliant, I'll give him credit for it. Right now, he's represnting his country in tests and must be judged on that basis. Its Test cricket, there are no excuses. Use that excuse in domestic cricket and let him learn how to be 'consistently brilliant' there. Thats just a stupid excuse in international cricket. He got hit for six fours in six balls in an over. Let him work that out first, before I start calling him anything other than an once-in-a-while-maybe-take-a-wicket bowler.

Just take a long hard look at your posts Silent, and realise that you are irritating everyone!

You have the option to just scroll over my posts.

And in regards to your "India were never going to take 20 wickets" claim, you know damn well they in the first 2 test matches they bowled brilliantly on flat tracks. 19 wickets in the first, and 17 in the 2nd despite missing a whole day due to rain!

They bowled well in patches. In the second test, I specifically said that they would have taken 20 if it was not for rain (read my posts). Still, they can't take twenty wickets consistently, and rain or not, they haven't done so yet.

 

[Jono]

Yes I read you said "well they would have taken 20" yet you continue to go on about how your claim that they were never going to take 20 wickets is becoming correct.

That = stupidity. They've bowled well this tour, and you're underestimating how batsman friendly these pitches have been.

 

[adharcric]

He got hit for six fours in six balls in an over. Let him work that out first, before I start calling him anything other than an once-in-a-while-maybe-take-a-wicket bowler.

Imran Khan gave up 24 in an over. Ian Botham gave up 25 in an over. Harbhajan Singh gave up 27 in an over. Hmm, they're all rubbish so Munaf must be too.
There is obviously some validity to your view that Indian bowlers are poor, but now it's just become an agenda for you and you seem to constantly be searching for an opportunity to seize to prove your point.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes I read you said "well they would have taken 20" yet you continue to go on about how your claim that they were never going to take 20 wickets is becoming correct.

Yes, they would have, but they didn't.

They've bowled well this tour, and you're underestimating how batsman friendly these pitches have been.

Kumble has bowled well, everyone else has been inconsistant.

 

[silentstriker]

Imran Khan gave up 24 in an over. Ian Botham gave up 25 in an over. Harbhajan Singh gave up 27 in an over. Hmm, they're all rubbish so Munaf must be too.

The fact that you compare Imran Khan and Ian Botham to Munaf Patel saddens me. If Munaf Patel had bowled like Imran Khan and then gave up one over worth of runs, I wouldn't be complaining.

 

[adharcric]

The fact that you compare Imran Khan and Ian Botham to Munaf Patel saddens me. If Munaf Patel had bowled like Imran Khan and then gave up one over worth of runs, I wouldn't be complaining.

The fact that you fail to comprehend simple messages amuses me. You seemed to write off Munaf on the basis of this 25-run over but ignored the impressive spells he's produced in his short career. I'm just saying that one bad over doesn't mean you're a poor bowler. The bowler's record when he accomplishes this feat isn't very relevant unless it happens when the bowler is way past his playing days, which is not the case with any of these guys. By the way, that 25-run over included two edged boundaries and some well-timed, bold strokes by Sarwan. Also, it'll take quite a lot for me to compare Munaf to Imran Khan or Ian Botham, rest assured.

 

[alternative]

this thread is keeping its consistency in criticising the players, for starter Munaf is inexperienced, look at the difference in bowling.. alrite he let off 25 runs but he did learn from his mistakes.. . didn't he?? In his short career so far i have been quite impressive..

he is young, just give him a break..

 

[SJS]

Its strange how LBW's evoke so much emotion. There can be six batsmen caught at first slip, six batsmen clean bowled, six batsmen stumped or even six batsmen run out.in an innings and at best we will attribute it to great bowling, bad technique, inability to play particular type of bowling and so on. But let there be six LBW's in an innings and we have the makings of a controversy.

All because the umpire has a greater discretion then other types of dismissals. But why cant this also be attributed to the bowling or batting techniques or the wicket conditions or a combination of these?

 

[Rajeev]

Its strange how LBW's evoke so much emotion. There can be six batsmen caught at first slip, six batsmen clean bowled, six batsmen stumped or even six batsmen run out.in an innings and at best we will attribute it to great bowling, bad technique, inability to play particular type of bowling and so on. But let there be six LBW's in an innings and we have the makings of a controversy.

All because the umpire has a greater discretion then other types of dismissals. But why cant this also be attributed to the bowling or batting techniques or the wicket conditions or a combination of these?

Aptly put, but the nature of the dismissal is itself controversial and creates arm-chair umpires after the TV replays anyways

 

[silentstriker]

The fact that you fail to comprehend simple messages amuses me. You seemed to write off Munaf on the basis of this 25-run over but ignored the impressive spells he's produced in his short career

Ignored? I've came on here and complimented him EVERY TIME he's bowled well. My issue isn't that he can't bowl well in patches, its that he is still inconsistent.