Time to drop Shoaib Akhtar?

[luckyeddie]

Going back to the thread title,

Shoaib Akhtar 'dropped' Brian Lara.

 

[Muddaser]

Mohammed Irshad will make his debut according to reports due to Shabbirs injury.

 

[tooextracool]

And if they both of them (not all three, because I've never advocated bowling Malik on a seamer) bowl well

and because saqlain and malik are so very similar you dont need both of them in the first place. you'd be better off playing a seamer or even a batsman in saqlains place because ATM your side is short in the batting and bowling department.

- like Saqlain and Mushtaq have proven capable of doing on any pitch in a one-day game - they'll take wickets if you go after them (and sometimes if you don't)..

no they havent proven anything at all on seamers. the fact is that any side that is 150/3 after 40 overs wont find it too hard to get around 240-250 after 50 on a seamers wicket with spinners bowling to them, because it wouldnt take much to smash them around on a seamer with wickets in hand, irrespective of the number of wickets that fall after that.

Except that Malik has suceeded against better sides.
Not enough times to make him into a "proven" player, but enough to make failures against minnow sides irrelevant.

no if you are not a proven player then failure against any side counts....if someone like macgill were to fail against bangladesh do you think he would still be in the side?

Or perhaps, given that Zimbabwe weren't substandard until after WC2003, it was just typical poor Pakistani selection?.

nope everyone knows that they have been substandard after 2000....if elahi were indeed good enough, he would be repeating those performances against all the other sides in the world.

Despite the fact that many, many of these half-centuries have played a very important part in winning matches or coming as close as anyone can ask for.

and when have i said that he didnt? for someone who accuses me off putting words on his keyboard that is just a very stupid comment indeed, because all ive said is that far far more often we see him get a 50 and get out in the 30th over when he should be batting till the end.

Why not? Personally I just pick my best players, however experienced they are.

which is why you're a fool, everyone knows that you go in with at least 7 batsman unless most of those 6 batsman happen to be world class ATM.....the fact is that not many of those batsmen are.

Yes, I know, and I was saying Pakistan can make being at home totally irrelevant.

no because rarely have pakistan played consistently well throughout a series...the fact is that zimbabwe never really stood a chance against them in any of those games.

Except that he's not likely to - you just think he could.
Personally I think if he were tried he'd average 34-5 sort of thing, maybe a bit less. Good, but not as good as Elahi.
And in any case, you might actually know that averages can go up (and down). Thus far in his ODI career, Elahi has underperformed against some sides. And if you ask me that'll change, assuming he plays more.

no the fact that elahi got enough chances and didnt succeed as much as everyone expected him to suggests that hes not good enough, and thats what the selectors thought too.
kamal hasnt played yet, and from what ive seen from him ive been extremely impressed.

 

[dro87]

would anyone want 2 drop him after hi figures today against west indies

 

[luckyeddie]

would anyone want 2 drop him after hi figures today against west indies

He was very impressive indeed - and very concerned after he hit Lara on the head.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, they were - see below.

Then IMO that's riduculous - to merit Test-status you have to be Test-class, ie able to compete with other sides. And as late as November 2003, they were still coming close to West Indies, albeit it was when West Indies were playing shockingly poorly.

its amazing how often you go back on your word....you just said that they didnt deserve test or ODI status after the world cup and it seems to me like November 2003 was in fact after the world cup. so well done in making yourself look like a fool there.

In the time from England 2000 onwards, they played as follows:
New Zealand (h) - 0-2. New Zealand were clearly a better side and won comfortably both times, but did not overwhelm them in either match. They also actually won a subsequent ODI series.
India (a) - beaten very easily, in both Tests and ODIs, as most sides are in India.
C&U Series (a) - always looked competetive with West Indies, neither side clearly anywhere near as good as Australia, though both sides came close, Zimbabwe closest.
New Zealand (a) - one-off Test, useless pitch, draw, totally pointless match. Again, though, they managed to win a subsequent ODI series.
Bangladesh (h) - won all 5 internationals very comfortably, as expected.
India (h) - 1-1, a pretty good result against a much better side.
Coca-Cola Cup (h) - lost every game IIRR. Poor performance.
West Indies (h) - 0-1, outplayed in one game (though not overwhelmed), competed well in the other.
South Africa (h) - managed to compete very well, losing one without being disgraced and drawing the other. Hammered in the ODIs.
England (h) - lost a ODI series 0-5, played very poorly against a poor England side, internal and external politics really started to show for the first time.
Bangladesh (a) - won all games bar the Test where the last 2 days were lost to rain. As expected.
Sri Lanka (a) - 0-3, hammered in Sri Lanka like most sides are.
LG Albans Series - beat West Indies once, would have qualified for the final if Sri Lanka hadn't somehow lost to them.
India (a) - hammered in India again, like most teams are.
Pakistan (h) - beaten pretty easily in all Tests and ODIs.

how does that even help your case? they seem to be hammered in many more games than they were actually competitive in. and i see how you nicely pick and choose the series that suit you best....you missed the champions trophy traingular against SL and india where they lost all 4 games and then of course you missed the khaleej times traingular where again they lost all 4 games to SL and pak

 

[tooextracool]

Sorry 4 wins in 38 games, 3 of which are discounted because they're against Bangladesh.

That clearly shows they're a superb side with great players doesn't it?

oh yes world class players like travis friend, henry olonga, gavin rennie, hamilton maskadza, vermeulen,dion ebrahim,craig wishart,brian murphy and douglas hondo

 

[Richard]

Sorry 4 wins in 38 games, 3 of which are discounted because they're against Bangladesh.

That clearly shows they're a superb side with great players doesn't it?

No, actually, it doesn't - and unsurprisingly I've never said they were "superb" or anything close to it.
1 win in 34 games (ie excluding Bangladesh matches) is not what matters - what matters is how close those games were, whether they were competetive or whether they were annhailated. And very seldom were they annhailated - except in India and Sri Lanka, where you'd expect nothing else.

 

[Richard]

Going back to the thread title,

Shoaib Akhtar 'dropped' Brian Lara.

No, he didn't, he caught Wavell Hinds and "felled" Brian Lara.
And it was good to see his reaction to it, both on the field and after the game.

 

[Richard]

its amazing how often you go back on your word....you just said that they didnt deserve test or ODI status after the world cup and it seems to me like November 2003 was in fact after the world cup. so well done in making yourself look like a fool there.

No, well done in misunderstanding yet again - I never said that one match proved or suggested they were Test class, I just said that even after they had lost their merit for being Test-class, they still managed to compete in a match.
Equally, before they lost that merit, they were competing most of the time.

how does that even help your case? they seem to be hammered in many more games than they were actually competitive in.

Wrong, they were hammered about as often, if not less so, than they were competetive.

and i see how you nicely pick and choose the series that suit you best....you missed the champions trophy traingular against SL and india where they lost all 4 games and then of course you missed the khaleej times traingular where again they lost all 4 games to SL and pak

Yes, true, I forgot to look at the neutral-venue tournaments - I was using the "all Test and ODI tours" part of CricInfo Zimbabwe, it seems to leave them out.
They can be added to the list as "read CocaCola Trophy"

 

[Richard]

oh yes world class players like travis friend, henry olonga, gavin rennie, hamilton maskadza, vermeulen,dion ebrahim,craig wishart,brian murphy and douglas hondo

Gavin Rennie, Wishart and Olonga certainly had potential if you ask me. Had they come from a better background they could have done rather better than they ended-up doing.
Not to say Murphy and Friend still don't have potential. If they're lucky enough to get what Blignaut and Ervine have got, I reckon they could have good careers, as I'm very confident those 2 will.

 

[luckyeddie]

No, he didn't, he caught Wavell Hinds and "felled" Brian Lara.
And it was good to see his reaction to it, both on the field and after the game.

An example..... ah, yes.

"Don't tell me what I meant, mister 14 posts in a row - or I'll drop you" is an example of a colloquialism used in at least one civilised (non-Yorkshire) area of the country.

 

[Richard]

and because saqlain and malik are so very similar you dont need both of them in the first place. you'd be better off playing a seamer or even a batsman in saqlains place because ATM your side is short in the batting and bowling department.

Any shortage in batting is made-up for by the fact that Saqlain is more than capable of bowling effectively on all surfaces, economically and tending to take wickets.

no they havent proven anything at all on seamers. the fact is that any side that is 150/3 after 40 overs wont find it too hard to get around 240-250 after 50 on a seamers wicket with spinners bowling to them, because it wouldnt take much to smash them around on a seamer with wickets in hand, irrespective of the number of wickets that fall after that.

So you don't bowl spinners at that time - no-one with any sense bowls spinners in the last 10 overs (except Gayle and Jayasuriya, who are very good at bowling then).

no if you are not a proven player then failure against any side counts....if someone like macgill were to fail against bangladesh do you think he would still be in the side?

I highly doubt it. Then again, MacGill is a proven failure against the better sides.
Malik will doubtless be disappointed with his failures against Kenya and all the other times he's failed at the top of the order.

nope everyone knows that they have been substandard after 2000....

Wrong, you think it - not heard that from anyone else, any time.

if elahi were indeed good enough, he would be repeating those performances against all the other sides in the world.

And mostly he was.

 

[Richard]

and when have i said that he didnt? for someone who accuses me off putting words on his keyboard that is just a very stupid comment indeed, because all ive said is that far far more often we see him get a 50 and get out in the 30th over when he should be batting till the end.

If you get 50 and get out in the 30th over that's perfectly good enough for me - I'm sure most teams would take a player who does that, averages 42, and plays a large part in winning lots of games.

which is why you're a fool, everyone knows that you go in with at least 7 batsman unless most of those 6 batsman happen to be world class ATM.....the fact is that not many of those batsmen are.

And all of them have the potential to be IMO. So far, none of them have done too badly, either.

no because rarely have pakistan played consistently well throughout a series...the fact is that zimbabwe never really stood a chance against them in any of those games.

Yes, it was a false encouragement to see Pakistan managing a consistent demolition - a false indicator for WC2003. Zimbabwe didn't stand a chance, no - Pakistan were too good. For once.

no the fact that elahi got enough chances and didnt succeed as much as everyone expected him to suggests that hes not good enough, and thats what the selectors thought too.

If someone is expected to average 50 and "only" averages 36, I'd still be more than willing to keep him in my side, personally. Because 36 is perfectly "good enough" for most sides, especially when there is always the possibility of it getting a lot better.

kamal hasnt played yet, and from what ive seen from him ive been extremely impressed.

So have I - in Test-match cricket.

 

[Richard]

An example..... ah, yes.

"Don't tell me what I meant, mister 14 posts in a row - or I'll drop you" is an example of a colloquialism used in at least one civilised (non-Yorkshire) area of the country.

Err, OK...

 

[tooextracool]

If you get 50 and get out in the 30th over that's perfectly good enough for me - I'm sure most teams would take a player who does that, averages 42, and plays a large part in winning lots of games.

except that very few of those 50s actually won games, most of the time hes out too early to help them win any game.

And all of them have the potential to be IMO. So far, none of them have done too badly, either.

of course you believe that all of them have the potential to be, otherwise you wouldnt have picked them in the side. but the fact is that they havent done anything that has made them anywhere near world class yet, half of them arent evey proven batsmen. and when you have a side like that you dont go in with 6 batsman....

Yes, it was a false encouragement to see Pakistan managing a consistent demolition - a false indicator for WC2003. Zimbabwe didn't stand a chance, no - Pakistan were too good. For once..

no the fact is that pakistan never have rarely ever been that consistent throughout any tournament......and this wasnt any different, another of those cases where the opposition just were too bad.

If someone is expected to average 50 and "only" averages 36, I'd still be more than willing to keep him in my side, personally. Because 36 is perfectly "good enough" for most sides, especially when there is always the possibility of it getting a lot better.

1)ive already pointed out reasons why that average is higher than what hes worth
2) if someone has the potential to average far more than him, then you bring that person into the side ahead of him....

So have I - in Test-match cricket.

and i believe that he could be just about as devastating if he got a chance in ODIs....

 

[tooextracool]

Any shortage in batting is made-up for by the fact that Saqlain is more than capable of bowling effectively on all surfaces, economically and tending to take wickets.

how is it made up? the man isnt half as effective as what a seamer would be on a seamer friendly wicket and he cant bat and theres a player who bowls just like him whos more valuable in the side!

So you don't bowl spinners at that time - no-one with any sense bowls spinners in the last 10 overs (except Gayle and Jayasuriya, who are very good at bowling then).

yes i know but look carefully and see how many fast bowlers you have in your side ATM....whatever happens there will be plenty of occasions with you having to bowl your spinners at the death and even if you didnt with wickets in hand i wouldnt be surprised if the fast bowlers went for a truckload of runs.

I highly doubt it. Then again, MacGill is a proven failure against the better sides.

macgill isnt by any means a proven failure, and his success against SA proves that. he might not be 'world class' or even a proven player but that doesnt take away the fact that hes done well even if rarely.

Malik will doubtless be disappointed with his failures against Kenya and all the other times he's failed at the top of the order.

so you finally agree that failure against all sides counts now?

Wrong, you think it - not heard that from anyone else, any time..

so marc disagreeing with you on the same fact means that no one agrees with me then?

And mostly he was.

no he wasnt, because he struggled against most other sides away from home....and never played anywhere as well as he did in zimbabwe anywhere else in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

Gavin Rennie, Wishart and Olonga certainly had potential if you ask me. Had they come from a better background they could have done rather better than they ended-up doing.
Not to say Murphy and Friend still don't have potential. If they're lucky enough to get what Blignaut and Ervine have got, I reckon they could have good careers, as I'm very confident those 2 will.

OMG do you not learn? you yourself said that potential doesnt mean anything until they perform.....and then you compared bowlers like friend and blignaut to bowlers like bracken and williams..

 

[tooextracool]

No, well done in misunderstanding yet again - I never said that one match proved or suggested they were Test class, I just said that even after they had lost their merit for being Test-class, they still managed to compete in a match.
Equally, before they lost that merit, they were competing most of the time.

what is your point though? why try to give me an occasion where they competed after wc 2003 despite the fact that it doesnt help your argument or my argument?

Wrong, they were hammered about as often, if not less so, than they were competetive."

err no they were hammered far more often than they competed, look carefully, and they were certainly nowhere near as competitive as they were pre 2000

Yes, true, I forgot to look at the neutral-venue tournaments - I was using the "all Test and ODI tours" part of CricInfo Zimbabwe, it seems to leave them out.
They can be added to the list as "read CocaCola Trophy"

or rather it was just another of your attempts of modifying facts to suit yourself?
strange that you missed out neutral venues, yet got the C& U series in 00 and the lg abans triangular.......

 

[marc71178]

1 win in 34 games (ie excluding Bangladesh matches) is not what matters

Sorry, but with 1 win from 34, how can the team be anything but substandard?

For the record they had plenty of innings defeats and big runs and wickets as well.