Pakistan's chances in England this summer

[Richard]

i dont think ive heard of too many other indian bowlers before srinath bowling in the mid-high 80s, hence the claim that he was the quickest indian bowler ever is not too far fetched. i honestly dont think he ever bowled a ball in the 90s, certainly not in his 30s thats for sure, speedometers have had plenty of random clockings in the past, and this could well have been one of them,especially considering that it only happened once.

I don't think it did only happen once - I'm pretty sure I remember him being regularly clocked at 88-89 in the Super Six (only time they used the Speedster in WC99), but the only time I've got conctrete evidence is in Wisden's "Fastest Recorded Deliveries In The 1999 World Cup", where Shoaib and Donald dominate and no-one else figures more than once.
I doubt he did bowl many balls in the 90s in his 30s, but I never said that - I said I think he might have bowled there sometimes in his mid and late 20s, which is normally when most bowlers are fastest.
Kapil Dev was certainly pretty quick in his day, too, though of course we'll never know exactly how fast.

and have i said that they are world class? i just said that based on their performances in their 2 tests, i rate SS marginally higher than patel, while i think both of them have plenty of potential.

When did I say you called either World-class? I said that I think there's probably something in that Patel's First-Class average is 9 runs lower than SS's. If the difference was only 3 or even 4, maybe not, but 9? I think there has to be something in it.

 

[tooextracool]

I've not said he can't. I've said if he was so good at doing it, his SR would be a bit lower than it is.

if he could do it with a lot more accuracy then it would be lower.

 

[tooextracool]

It's not the only time he caused him problems on the tour - there were several other occasions, using exactly the same tactic.

who cares? the fact of the matter is that he bowled well at several points during the tour, and the spell at the oval was one of them

Why even mention Pietersen? It was a good spell, yes, it might well have caused most players problems, but the way I interpreted it you were suggesting it was somehow special because of Pietersen being on-strike.

how else do i refer to the spell then? i mentioned the spell to pietersen so that people had an idea what spell i was talking about, not ot debate pietersen's batting skills.

 

[tooextracool]

I think he's by-and-large bowled a heap of rubbish in his Test career, excepting that Faisalabad game.
I don't see that you can really justify picking someone for a load of Tests in a row with the record he's got.
I also think it's pretty unlikely that he'll "sort out" his accuracy, because that's something that's extremely difficult to do..

i think hes been rather unfortunate to have bowled on the series of flat wickets that he has had recently, especially his most recent test stint. when you consider that his average of 32 against england is quite decent. the game against india is hardly relevant given that even the greatest bowlers ever would have struggled to bowl anyone out on that pitch.

Yes, they have - their ODI careers have been characterised by being smashed all over the park but getting regular wickets with good deliveries and bad - exactly like Rana Naved-Ul-Hasan.

b/s, i cant imagine dilhara fernando ever bowling a wicket taking delivery in his career, and im fairly certain plunkett hasnt done so either. the others have certainly not done so with the same regularity as naved, and as a result none of them have records as illustrous as his

It could - he probably did - but what I meant was that Peter Moores' reaction was a little strange, as he talked-up Rana as something pretty sensational, when compared to Bevan and Goodwin he's clearly anything but..

why because you say so? fact is his performances for sussex might well have been sensational, and hence he might actually have deserved the acclaim.

I think some of the Shoaib inswinging-Yorkers were at least as good..

because a ball that swings one way is harder to play than one that swings both ways?
fact is not bradman or anyone else would have managed to get bat onto that, i can think of several players who even in that series managed to play shoaibs inswinging yorkers.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't think it did only happen once - I'm pretty sure I remember him being regularly clocked at 88-89 in the Super Six (only time they used the Speedster in WC99), but the only time I've got conctrete evidence is in Wisden's "Fastest Recorded Deliveries In The 1999 World Cup", where Shoaib and Donald dominate and no-one else figures more than once.
I doubt he did bowl many balls in the 90s in his 30s, but I never said that - I said I think he might have bowled there sometimes in his mid and late 20s, which is normally when most bowlers are fastest.
Kapil Dev was certainly pretty quick in his day, too, though of course we'll never know exactly how fast.

i honestly dont remember him ever clocking a ball in the 90s. he may well on the odd occasion have clocked up 88-89, but by and large he was a 83-84-85 bowler depending on his rhythm.

When did I say you called either World-class? I said that I think there's probably something in that Patel's First-Class average is 9 runs lower than SS's. If the difference was only 3 or even 4, maybe not, but 9? I think there has to be something in it.

i say stop being a tool and looking at FC averages, when the point of discussion here is which of the 2 impressed more in their first 2 test matches. your argument is like saying ramprakash and hick are far better players than butcher at the international level, because they average over 10 runs more than him

 

[Richard]

if he could do it with a lot more accuracy then it would be lower.

Obviously it would be but I'd expect it to be lower than it is even given how wayward he is if he was really so good at said techniques.

 

[Richard]

who cares? the fact of the matter is that he bowled well at several points during the tour, and the spell at the oval was one of them

Yes, so what?
He rarely bowled so well as to cause other players problems with similar spells - Pietersen just has a weakness in his strokeplay in that area. Lee and Sreesanth are by no means the only bowlers to suggest that.

how else do i refer to the spell then? i mentioned the spell to pietersen so that people had an idea what spell i was talking about, not ot debate pietersen's batting skills.

Good, good - as so often we've wasted 3 or 4 posts arguing about something we really didn't need to.

 

[Richard]

i think hes been rather unfortunate to have bowled on the series of flat wickets that he has had recently, especially his most recent test stint. when you consider that his average of 32 against england is quite decent. the game against india is hardly relevant given that even the greatest bowlers ever would have struggled to bowl anyone out on that pitch.

In all of 2 games against England! Fact is he's had 1 good game and 1 poor game against England - and been terrible against everyone else! No, no bowler was really effective in any of the India-Pakistan games he's played in, but was anyone seriously expecting them to? Kumble and Harbhajan need turning pitches to be effective, Shoaib either wasn't playing or wasn't fit, and the rest are pretty rubbish.
I'd back a fully-fit Shoaib to be effective on just about any pitch, no matter how easy-paced, same way I'd have backed the 1989-1994 Waqar to have done.

b/s, i cant imagine dilhara fernando ever bowling a wicket taking delivery in his career, and im fairly certain plunkett hasnt done so either. the others have certainly not done so with the same regularity as naved, and as a result none of them have records as illustrous as his

Funny how Geoff Allott's record wasn't "illustrious" when it was pretty similar...
Yes, Dilhara Fernando has bowled a few wicket-taking balls - especially those slower-balls of his. Plunkett maybe no.

why because you say so? fact is his performances for sussex might well have been sensational, and hence he might actually have deserved the acclaim.

I very much doubt it - if they'd been so sensational he'd probably have averaged 15-16 rather than 20, given the generally pretty low standard of county batsmanship and the brevity of his stay.

because a ball that swings one way is harder to play than one that swings both ways?
fact is not bradman or anyone else would have managed to get bat onto that, i can think of several players who even in that series managed to play shoaibs inswinging yorkers.

Sorry, when were we talking about the swinging-both-ways ball? I thought we were talking about the Vaughan Yorker.
Yes, Shoaib had some inswinging-Yorkers kept-out - so did Rana. Not every inswinging-Yorker gets a wicket, but if it's used effectively I'd back it to get one far more often than not.

 

[Richard]

i honestly dont remember him ever clocking a ball in the 90s. he may well on the odd occasion have clocked up 88-89, but by and large he was a 83-84-85 bowler depending on his rhythm.

Yes, I don't find that inconceivable - because he was 30-31 by the time he was being timed regularly.
As such, I reckon it's possible - not certain, but possible - that he was bowling quicker than that at peak physical condition.

i say stop being a tool and looking at FC averages, when the point of discussion here is which of the 2 impressed more in their first 2 test matches. your argument is like saying ramprakash and hick are far better players than butcher at the international level, because they average over 10 runs more than him

Err, what? Ramprakash, Hick and Butcher both played Test cricket aplenty. I'm talking about 2 bowlers who've played 2 Tests apiece and both done pretty well, in similar ways. Of course First-Class averages aren't too important for comparison of players who've played lots at Test-level, but they are for those whose Test stats are at best inconclusive to date.