**Official** Pakistan in Australia Thread

[Richard]

Your logic on luck is flawed. Luck is there in every aspect of life. To make most of it is what is necessary.

He didnt <i>only</i> score the runs because of poor keeping. The pressure was immense, and it was one of the classiest innings I have seen in a tough situation.

He would not have scored the runs but for it.

Discrediting him because of dropped chances is not great. If you ever do watch football (soccer), you will realise how much luck has to play with success or failure.

And it's far less quantifiable in soccer (or rugby, or anything else).

When Lara score that run to equal Sobers for 365, the stumps were touched by his bat but luckily the bails didnt fall. So lara didnt deserve to break that record at the time? Australia werent great at World Cup 2003 because they may have lst if Gibbs had taken the catch? And again I reiterate, Sehwag is an average player because he has figured out what works for him is playing aggresively and offering a few chances as he still manages to average above 50?

WC99, I think you may have been referring to - yes, hindsight suggests that single catch cost SA the World Cup. But we can't, of course, be certain - all we can be certain about is that Stephen Waugh wouldn't have been credited with playing far better than he actually played.
Lara, meanwhile, did well enough not to knock the bails off. So he nearly knocked them off - so what? Nearly is nothing.

 

[Richard]

He is, of the team in place for the current series. He might be good tactically, but unfortunately he lacks in communication skills.

That's true of many for whom English is not their first language IMO.

 

[Pratters]

So he nearly knocked them off - so what? Nearly is nothing.

Yeah nearly is indeed nothing. Pakistan nearly got him out. But they didnt. Langer played a great inning. Its better we dont discredit him and say it was all due to LUCK

 

[Sudeep]

That's true of many for whom English is not their first language IMO.

Still, there are better options from Pakistan that could've been looked at.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not directly on topic, but...

A Statistical Profile of Saeed Anwar

 

[Richard]

Good deconstruction, that.
I always loved watching Saeed myself - one of the best-looking players you could wish for.
Never quite did his talent justice IMO - he could have averaged in the 50s in domestic cricket (both forms) with a bit more work, and in the mid-40s in ODIs and Tests.

 

[Mister Wright]

have you seriously observed the number of times that lara has been bowled around his legs?

No.

 

[Mister Wright]

I was indeed referring to that innings.
My point was that he scored that innings entirely through his own good batting by not allowing England any chances to dismiss him.
In this one it doesn't matter that the attack was more challenging, he only scored the runs because Akmal wasn't good enough dismiss him when he'd done all that would normally result in dismissal.
The only reason he avoided dismissal was not because he had done something well.

A wicket keeper diving down leg is a 50/50 at best so to say that his innings should be disregarded all together because of that chance is a bit rough IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

well its happened many many times, most recently by flintoff.

 

[Mister Wright]

well its happened many many times, most recently by flintoff.

So? Just because it is Lara, doesn't make it any less of a careless dismissal or a waste of a wicket.

 

[tooextracool]

So? Just because it is Lara, doesn't make it any less of a careless dismissal or a waste of a wicket.

except that it has helped both of them for all those runs that they've got throughout their career. of course there are bound to be times when they dont quite know where their leg stump is, but given the number of times that they've predicted that to perfection it doesnt say much. IMO its just as careles as leaving a ball that goes onto to hit your pads or hits the off stump, and how many times have we seen that?

 

[Richard]

A wicket keeper diving down leg is a 50/50 at best so to say that his innings should be disregarded all together because of that chance is a bit rough IMO.

The point is - as Mark Taylor pointed-out - he moved later than he should have done and as a result missed what was actually a very simple chance.
A chance better wicketkeeping would have resulted in being taken.
I didn't say his innings should be totally disregarded because of it - he played extremely well for 167* - but it's a 167* he wouldn't have had the chance to score given normal circumstances.
Unlike his 250 against England which was a quite fantastic exhibition of how to score runs without getting out.

 

[Richard Rash]

The point is - as Mark Taylor pointed-out - he moved later than he should have done and as a result missed what was actually a very simple chance.
A chance better wicketkeeping would have resulted in being taken.
I didn't say his innings should be totally disregarded because of it - he played extremely well for 167* - but it's a 167* he wouldn't have had the chance to score given normal circumstances.
Unlike his 250 against England which was a quite fantastic exhibition of how to score runs without getting out.

Richard- How much cricket have you played in your life? The chance that Langer gave cannot be described as very simple. A better keeper may have taken it but to go as far as to say it was very simple is quite laughable. It makes me wonder do you say things regardless of whether you believe in it or not just for arguments sake?

Also Langer's innings was quite superb. IMO he didn't even offer a clear chance and under great pressure both from the bowling and the way his team were batting.. and since you like pointing out what MarK Taylor has to say, he said it was the best innings he had seen Langer play.

 

[Crazy Sam]

his innings shouldn't be discredited at all, missed catches are part of the game and the opposition's inability to take the catches should not be used to discredit any part of his innings. To bat 6 1/2 hours straight like he did, particularly with the carnage early on, and particularly given it was a 1/2 hour longer that he had to concentrate because of the pakistani's pathetic over rate, says alone that it was a superb knock.

 

[The Argonaut]

This is the perfect example of why the first chance system is a subjective one. Most of the people on this forum don't consider the WK error a clear chance. Just because the keeper should have been better does not mean that Langer should be penalised in any way.

I thought it was the best Langer innings that I've seen. The quality of the bowling early on was excellent, better than what was fed to him for his 250. Shoaib, Sami and Khalil bowled well. They were not backed up by poor bowling from Razzaq.

Inzy's captaincy was pretty ordinary late in the day. He gave Langer too many runs trying to go after the guy at the other end. They should have made some attempt at getting Langer out.

Lehmann must be on his last legs as a test batsman. His dismissal was quite comical. It's fair enough to be bowled around your legs by a fast ball if it just hits the leg stump. This one hit middle and leg. very poor footwork.

Shoaib despite getting the spoils, isn't very fit. 20 overs in the day and he was cactus. It wasn't even hot (25 degrees). His speed in the afternoon session was McGrath pace and it's no wonder he got smacked around.

 

[Mr Casson]

Exactly the same thing I thought. Even the bat ended up in one hand.

Just about every shot Ponting plays early in his innings ends up in one hand. He shifts his weight all to the front and lunges at the ball and the bat comes out of his hand.

Although I'll always remember in the WC2003 final when he hit a six despite the bat coming out of his hand. That was amazing! "In the zone" indeed.

 

[Mr Casson]

Why is Waqar Younis commentating for Channel 9? Couldn't they find Rameez? Or even Wasim, as much as I think he's a potty commentator, would've done. But Waqar?

It's Waqar, is it? I was unsure of whom it was, but I was going to say the same thing. Luckily, I grabbed a few extra hours of sleep last night to be ready for today!

 

[Mr Casson]

That's true of many for whom English is not their first language IMO.

And you?

 

[Mr Casson]

well its happened many many times, most recently by flintoff.

I think they're a little bit different. From what I've seen, Lara tends to get bowled by much fuller, swinging deliveries, which are harder to hit once you've shuffled across than a shortish delivery aimed straight at the stumps.

 

[Mr Casson]

The point is - as Mark Taylor pointed-out - he moved later than he should have done and as a result missed what was actually a very simple chance.
A chance better wicketkeeping would have resulted in being taken.
I didn't say his innings should be totally disregarded because of it - he played extremely well for 167* - but it's a 167* he wouldn't have had the chance to score given normal circumstances.
Unlike his 250 against England which was a quite fantastic exhibition of how to score runs without getting out.

So basically what you're saying is Akmal wasn't up to the task? That's completely different to him missing a chance he 'should" have taken. You can only measure a chance on whether the person could have taken it, not whether another 'keeper could have.

Saying "a better 'keeper would have taken it" says to me that you believe Akmal isn't good enough to take those catches, which means he's rarely going to take those catches, which means saying Langer was lucky is wrong; if he's going to be let off the hook most of the time, I wouldn't call it luck.

Incidentally, it was a pretty difficult chance IMO.