Somerset Sign Nixon McLean for 2003

[warrioryohannan]

[/quote]

First of all, India mostly goes into a match with 2 pacers.[/quote]

They played with 3 twice in that series, and despite the very poor effort in the first Test from the seamers, they were all retained! [/quote]

And guess what buddy? Had they been axed after the first drawn test match just on the basis of first match performance, India wouldn't had won the second test match!!
Its a fact that Ashish Nehra was instrumental in India's win over the WI in the second test match.Nehra in particular coz Wi were in a very good position to win the match but the left handed pacer removed both Lara and hooper in a brillinat spell to pave way for an Indian victory.

It was unfortunate that the pacers wasn't able to perform well in the rest of the series, particularly in the 4th and the 5th test match they looked jaded.But The pacers were not alone responsible for the defeat, the batters performed badly too, Das in particular was pathetic, India surely did miss Sehwag badly

 

[marc71178]

And guess what buddy? Had they been axed after the first drawn test match just on the basis of first match performance, India wouldn't had won the second test match!!

Well, buddy, I was talking about the series in England (when Srinath wasn't in, they played 3 seamers, and still your "hero" didn't get in the team. I was pointing out that you said the fact that they only play with 2 seamers is a reason for him not appearing to be false.

 

[warrioryohannan]

Sorry dude ur claims are misleading.U says that India played with three pacers throughout that series.WRONG, India played with 3 pacers in just the first 2 test match.Infact Ajit was played as an allrounder rather than a specialist pacer, and after the ton he was basically retained coz of his batting, this is what exactly what Ganguly said about ajit's role in the series!

U said all the pacers were retained, again u are wrong, Nehra was dropped after the second test match.And please don't count Bangar as the third pacer, Bangar basically played as an opener who can bowl a bit.

 

[V Reddy]

Hey don't you know the meaning of twice. He was about the 2 matches from the start and you are saying the whole series.

 

[V Reddy]

Hey don't you know the meaning of twice. He was telling about the 2 matches from the start and you are saying the whole series.

 

[marc71178]

Not sure about the dates, i read an interview of miandad in which he claimed that Akram played domestic cricket for a considerable amount of time and yet he went unnoticed by the then paid selectors!!

No, he definitely only played a couple of times before his Test debut.

 

[marc71178]

Interesting that Agarkar was apparently playing as a batsman when he came in at 8!

 

[Rik]

Sorry Mr. Yohannan but please please please accept that you are wrong! FOR EVERYONE'S SANITY HERE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T CALL ANYONE DUMB OR STUPID!!! READ WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND REPLY TO IT IN A NORMAL WAY RATHER THAN DISAGREEING WITH IT EVERY TIME! PLEASE! I NEED MY SANITY!!!

 

[warrioryohannan]

Originally posted by marc71178
Interesting that Agarkar was apparently playing as a batsman when he came in at 8!

Never said he played as a batsman BUT as an allrounder.

Kaif Plays at no 7 slot purely as a batsman in onedayers!

Rik... PLease stop typing in capital, its forbidden over here, otherwise ur post will be deleted!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by Rik
Sorry Mr. Yohannan but please please please accept that you are wrong! FOR EVERYONE'S SANITY HERE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T CALL ANYONE DUMB OR STUPID!!! READ WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND REPLY TO IT IN A NORMAL WAY RATHER THAN DISAGREEING WITH IT EVERY TIME! PLEASE! I NEED MY SANITY!!!

And for the sake of the rest of us, please stop using Capitals!
It doesn't gain anything and just annoys the rest of us.

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by warrioryohannan

Originally posted by marc71178
Interesting that Agarkar was apparently playing as a batsman when he came in at 8!

Never said he played as a batsman BUT as an allrounder.

Kaif Plays at no 7 slot purely as a batsman in onedayers!

Rik... PLease stop typing in capital, its forbidden over here, otherwise ur post will be deleted!

OK sorry, you said he played because of his batting skills (which prior to that series were even worse than his bowling!)

 

[warrioryohannan]

[/quote]

OK sorry, you said he played because of his batting skills (which prior to that series were even worse than his bowling!) [/quote]

It was, and it will be! some guys were making fun of English bowlers as they thought it was only against an attack like England against which Ajit could have come up with a ton!!!

Now if Mark Waugh doesn't come up with a big score against England, wouldn't it be a shame???

 

[marc71178]

It was, and it will be! some guys were making fun of English bowlers as they thought it was only against an attack like England against which Ajit could have come up with a ton!!!

I have no doubt that he wouldn't have made a century had the match been closer!

 

[marc71178]

Now if Mark Waugh doesn't come up with a big score against England, wouldn't it be a shame???

Speaking as an Englishman, I don't think it would be a shame!

 

[warrioryohannan]

Originally posted by marc71178

It was, and it will be! some guys were making fun of English bowlers as they thought it was only against an attack like England against which Ajit could have come up with a ton!!!

I have no doubt that he wouldn't have made a century had the match been closer!

Huh? What difference does it make? whether the match had been close or not the fact that Ajit scored a ton speak volumes of the capabilities of English bowlers!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Makes quite a lot of difference actually... in a pressure situation the English bowlers would have been far more fired up to get him, and Agarkar may well have choked more easily.

 

[marc71178]

Huh? What difference does it make? whether the match had been close or not the fact that Ajit scored a ton speak volumes of the capabilities of English bowlers!

Well, he came in with India needing 398 from 4 wickets, hardly a pressure situation.

 

[Rik]

Sorry, but sometimes I might get pissed off being told Im dumb all the time...

 

[warrioryohannan]

! [/quote]

Well, he came in with India needing 398 from 4 wickets, hardly a pressure situation. [/quote]

Whether he would have handled the pressure or not is an entirely different matter, just the fact that a batsman like Ajit was able to come up with a ton is surprising! U can't deny the fact that England bowled poorly!

My point is/has been (ever since u reffered to Ajit's poor batting ave) that England bowled very poorly to have enabled Ajit to register a ton, i never even tried to praise Ajit for his performance, so talking about how he would have fared in crunch situation is totally irrelevant!

 

[marc71178]

The match was won, and they took their foot off the gas a little to early. He took his chances and it paid off - I wouldn't have said that England bowled poorly in that game at all though.