***Official*** Pakistan in Bangladesh 2015

[Prince EWS]

I don't know why he still bats ahead of Mushfiqur really. I can understand batting Mushfiqur in the lower middle order due to his wicket keeping and captaincy workload, but Shakib has a big load with the ball himself anyway.

 

[Niall]

Bowling powerhouse looks toothless

Don't think anybody thinks this bowling line up is to special.

Babar isn't awful, but has been picked a few years to late sadly and is finished, Shah is decent and no more than that, Junaid is a trundler of **** these days and probably due another injury, while Wahab has always been wildly inconsistent.

 

[Aritro]

So has anyone here seen Mohammad Shahid play? Is he any good?

First class stats look pretty run of the mill

 

[cnerd123]

Urgh always sucks to lose a wicket on the last ball of the day.

Overall though; well played by BD. They were slow, yes, but they batted through an entire days play and have set themselves up well for a score around 400. Mominul keeps churning out the runs, solid contributions from the rest but it's a shame no one has built on their start to get a big score yet.

Good to see common sense prevail and Sarkar not being thrown in to open. Good to see Kayes score a 50. Batting right down to 8, bowling feels a bit thin with just the two quicks, Taijul, Shakib, and the part-timers. I know Hom is supposed to be an allrounder, but he hasn't impressed me yet. Doesn't seem much better than Nasir or Mahmadullah bowling wise.

Shahid has pretty meh FC stats and not a great run of recent for either...so not expecting him to fare so well. Hope he's better than the numbers say.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Bowling powerhouse looks toothless

So who actually considers Pakistan a bowling powehouse? Don't think anyone does. LOL

 

[Pratters]

Side note, but I'm absolutely loving the fact that Star Sports are covering this online for free in HD. Great stuff.

On their tv channels, they are showing it on non hd sadly.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

****s for Mominul to get out at that stage. Another century was on the card.

 

[cricman]

Big Task to ask Shakib, Mushfiqur and Somaya to get this past 400

 

[smash84]

bangers have done well to close the day at 236 for 4 (apparently lost a wicket at the last ball of the day). Does the wicket look good to bat on?

 

[Prince EWS]

bangers have done well to close the day at 236 for 4 (apparently lost a wicket at the last ball of the day). Does the wicket look good to bat on?

Yeah it's a road.

 

[Pratters]

Bangladesh could so easily have finished the day at 236/2 or so. Lost wickets in the end after toiling all day.

 

[hendrix]

Bangladesh could so easily have finished the day at 236/2 or so. Lost wickets in the end after toiling all day.

Could be all out had Pakistan taken their catches though.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Could be all out had Pakistan taken their catches though.

My dog could've been a Harvard professor if she could recite Shakespeare's works too

 

[Prince EWS]

Could be all out had Pakistan taken their catches though.

It doesn't really work like that. Creating two chances off Kayes is easier than creating one off Kayes and one off Rahim.

 

[hendrix]

My dog could've been a Harvard professor if she could recite Shakespeare's works too

It doesn't really work like that. Creating two chances off Kayes is easier than creating one off Kayes and one off Rahim.

I don't get it. Did you see the post I was responding to?

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't get it. Did you see the post I was responding to?

Pratters's post was just as deserving of Albi's reply as yours was, but it didn't exhibit the same logical fallacy as yours. Pratters's post was at least accurate even if pointless; your post isn't necessarily true.

 

[hendrix]

Pratters's post was just as deserving of Albi's reply as yours was, but it didn't exhibit the same logical fallacy as yours. Pratters's post was at least accurate even if pointless; your post isn't necessarily true.

I'm afraid this is not true.

If you lose one wicket you may or may not lose the next.

 

[Prince EWS]

(I do realise you were just taking the piss out of him by pointing out that his whatifism was pointless, but the fallacy of "we created two chances off the same batsman and therefore we would've had two wickets if we took all our catches" has just always bugged me )

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm afraid this is not true.

If you lose one wicket you may or may not lose the next.

If they didn't lose wickets late in the day, they would have been two down. This is accurate. If they didn't lose the specific wickets they did they may have lost them again shortly after anyway.. but that's not what he said.

I suppose the runs part of the score isn't necessarily accurate tbf.

 

[hendrix]

(I do realise you were just taking the piss out of him by pointing out that his whatifism was pointless, but the fallacy of "we created two chances off the same batsman and therefore we would've had two wickets if we took all our catches" has just always bugged me )

If they didn't lose wickets late in the day, they would have been two down. This is accurate. If they didn't lose the specific wickets they did they may have lost them again shortly after anyway.. but that's not what he said.

I suppose the runs part of the score isn't necessarily accurate tbf.

Well yeah, my point was to say what happened happened...