*** Official *** Pakistan in India

[shortpitched713]

Which is ironic, because he's actually looked far, far more promising in Tests than ODIs.

I've seen him play a sum-total of 1 - the NatWest Challenge game in 2003. I don't need to see a game, though, to realise that a bowler who's gone for 5.22-an-over, 4.71-an-over, 6-an-over, 8.4-an-over, 11.6-an-over, 5.44-an-over, 5.22-an-over, 5.75-an-over, 4.8-an-over, 6.75-an-over and 6.21-an-over has bowled poorly.

I'm not actually commenting on whether he has a big future or not - it's not impossible that he might have.

Rather like the Bond-in-Tests question early on in his career, though, people massively overstate his deeds to date.

Will surpass Wasim Akram. Dead cert.

 

[shortpitched713]

Anyways, You are the biggest troll on this forum and I am sick of your ridiculous posts. so here you go to my Ignore List. While you rot in my Ignore Land Please dont forget to give a hug to Raghav, he has been sulking big time since India won the Twenty20.

Haha, solipsism for the win!

 

[funnygirl]

Will surpass Wasim Akram. Dead cert.

In what ?

 

[shortpitched713]

In what ?

Life. Everything. You know, the whole gamut.

 

[honestbharani]

Which is ironic, because he's actually looked far, far more promising in Tests than ODIs.

I've seen him play a sum-total of 1 - the NatWest Challenge game in 2003. I don't need to see a game, though, to realise that a bowler who's gone for 5.22-an-over, 4.71-an-over, 6-an-over, 8.4-an-over, 11.6-an-over, 5.44-an-over, 5.22-an-over, 5.75-an-over, 4.8-an-over, 6.75-an-over and 6.21-an-over has bowled poorly.

I'm not actually commenting on whether he has a big future or not - it's not impossible that he might have.

Rather like the Bond-in-Tests question early on in his career, though, people massively overstate his deeds to date.

so you are saying that you know more than the people who have actually WATCHED the games??????

 

[RolledOver]

Totley - Care to tell us the result on last India-Pak series in India. Just incase you forgot, here is it :-

Tests: India 1 Pakistan 1
ODIs: India 2 Pakistan 4

1-1 (since i was talking about test) means they were not able to beat us in their own back yard, exactly what i was talking about

 

[RolledOver]

Arrogant prediction.

Maybe , but predictions are predictions.I'm sure that India will win with ease, unless the BCCI make the mistake of making Sachin the test captain.In such a case India will win that won't be that much impressive

 

[pasag]

Sorry Richard, I refuse to take your opinion on Umar Gul as an ODI bowler seriously until you actually watch the guy play.

 

[RolledOver]

Definitely agree with the statement about his effectiveness on flat pitches. Sure hes not a Shoaib Akhtar, but hes as devastating as anyone I've seen in the recent past with a reverse swinging ball.

He also hasn't seemed all that injury prone since his comeback from a longterm injury, so I don't think injuries will be a major problem for him (fingers crossed).

He basically improved under the guidance of Waqar Younis.Some days Gul can be very ordinary, yet another day he can be impressive.If Waqar is brought back as the coach, then Gul can become a really dangerous bowler

 

[Perm]

Which is ironic, because he's actually looked far, far more promising in Tests than ODIs.

I've seen him play a sum-total of 1 - the NatWest Challenge game in 2003. I don't need to see a game, though, to realise that a bowler who's gone for 5.22-an-over, 4.71-an-over, 6-an-over, 8.4-an-over, 11.6-an-over, 5.44-an-over, 5.22-an-over, 5.75-an-over, 4.8-an-over, 6.75-an-over and 6.21-an-over has bowled poorly.

I'm not actually commenting on whether he has a big future or not - it's not impossible that he might have.

Rather like the Bond-in-Tests question early on in his career, though, people massively overstate his deeds to date.

4.71 and 4.8 is not poor.

 

[Athlai]

4.71 and 4.8 is not poor.

The expected reply:


Good bowling is economical bowling, any bowler worth his salt should be bowling at under 4 an over, otherwise they are just showing a dire effort. The only reason to keep a bowler who is so expensive is if they are a genuine wicket taker, and Gul is not a genuine wicket taker. He is purely average.

 

[biased indian]

Which is ironic, because he's actually looked far, far more promising in Tests than ODIs.

I've seen him play a sum-total of 1 - the NatWest Challenge game in 2003. I don't need to see a game, though, to realise that a bowler who's gone for 5.22-an-over, 4.71-an-over, 6-an-over, 8.4-an-over, 11.6-an-over, 5.44-an-over, 5.22-an-over, 5.75-an-over, 4.8-an-over, 6.75-an-over and 6.21-an-over has bowled poorly.

I'm not actually commenting on whether he has a big future or not - it's not impossible that he might have.

Rather like the Bond-in-Tests question early on in his career, though, people massively overstate his deeds to date.

and still his career Econ is 4.67

 

[Manee]

I massively fear for India in the ODIs. Just following the Challenger Trophy and India's recent ODIs, (besides Zaheer,) there are no moderately accurate pacers who bowl over 125kph and it is the reason they concede 300 so often.

 

[Richard]

Sorry Richard, I refuse to take your opinion on Umar Gul as an ODI bowler seriously until you actually watch the guy play.

My opinion won't change until his figures improve, even if I do watch the games where he's going for 5.5-an-over.

 

[Richard]

and still his career Econ is 4.67

Only if you include games against substandard sides - including ODI-standard ones only I presume it's somewhere up around 5-an-over.

 

[Richard]

so you are saying that you know more than the people who have actually WATCHED the games??????

Given that people will often say "he bowled well" because he bowled a few slower-balls that got launched into the stands and got 3 play-and-misses in 1 over while being AOTP in the others...

Yes.

 

[Richard]

4.71 and 4.8 is not poor.

7-33-2 and 10-48-0 are poor spells.

And I watched the first of those two as well.

 

[R_D]

7-33-2 and 10-48-0 are poor spells.

And I watched the first of those two as well.

I don't know most would call those ok rather than rubbish figures..... nothing extraordinary but certainly not rubbish.

 

[Richard]

They're not disastrous, neither of them. But they're certainly not good and they're certainly more poor than 10-42-0, for instance, would be. That's what I'd call a decent-but-not-good spell.

 

[Jamee999]

7-33-2 is poor?