What's your opinion about Sanjay Bangar?

[vandemataram]

Nor do you!

 

[masterblaster]

I think i may have a little more clue than you, i can get people to back me up on this one mate!

 

[vandemataram]

Oh so you need some people help, go on mate, tells a lot about your upbringing.

 

[masterblaster]

A little joke, and this guy starts attacking me! Tells a bit about his upbringing too.

 

[vandemataram]

This from a guy who has been attacking others and advising them to behave!!

 

[BANGered]

This post was about Sanjay bangar, i wonder as to how Irani and Ajit found their way in?
But now that some of Ajit and Irani fans have mentioned them, let me tell you guys that Ajit is basically a pacer who is just handy with the bat, while Irani is someone who can be handy with both bat and ball!

Bangar has proved me wrong and i'm more than glad, i thought he would be useless in onedayer comming down the order at no 7-6, but he has been a good sucess.Man, this guy can open the innings in test cricket and saw off the new ball bowlers and give India and good start, and he can also change gears and come down the order ijn Onedayer and blast opponents off in few overs!!!

Yet some says he's no solution just stopgap, he's not that bad mate, give him some credit!

 

[marc71178]

I don't expect much from a person, who can't even spell Ajit, and to think he/she has come up with an allrounder rating:rolleyes::rolleyes:

All-rounder rating - no that is the PWC ratings - last time I checked I sdidn't invent them!

 

[marc71178]

Please refrain from personal attacks, everyone is entitled to her/his own opinion.I don't expect much from a person, who can't even spell Ajit

Anyone else see the irony here - that's more of a personal attack than what I said.

I merely pointed out that to say that Bangar and Agarkar are the best pair of all-rounders in the World is a stupid statement! Surely anyone can see that?

 

[marc71178]

This post was about Sanjay bangar, i wonder as to how Irani and Ajit found their way in?

Unwritten Cricketweb rule mate - every post eventually ends at Agarkar one way or the other - he must be the most debated Cricketer on this forum!

 

[marc71178]

I back up Masterblaster on this one - his posts almost always have some thought going into them, rather than jumping in with OTT reactions to the slightest thing.

Having said that, he's still wrong a lot of the time!

 

[Bazza]

Of course Agarkar has gone at more than 5 runs per over through 900 overs in ODIs. Economy is far more important than SR in ODIs. Strike rate is more important in test cricket.

 

[Bazza]

..and Bangar also has an economy of over 5, and an average of 38 having played 7 ODIs at the age of 30...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by vandemataram
I can't understand as to why are the Englishmen always trying to compare their cricketers with Indian cricketers??

This kicked off when an mayadevi claimed Agarkar/Bangar was a better pair than Kallis/Pollock...

Irani is not even a cricket of International level, what's the purpose of mentioning him??

In ODI he is - a "bits and pieces" player - see PwC thread

If the allrounder did well in a series or so it doesn't make him great, lets look at his career stats,

19 M W 16 Ave:35.6 St/Rt:48.6 4 Wkts:2

The Great English allrounder has less wkts than the number of matches he has actually played.His ave and St/rt is crap!
Not much to write about his batting either.

Unfortunately for this argument, Irani's ODI career had a 5-7 year (can't remember off the top of my head) break in it.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Originally posted by Bazzaroodoo
..and Bangar also has an economy of over 5, and an average of 38 having played 7 ODIs at the age of 30...

But he's in form currently, and ODI is a form game.

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup

Originally posted by vandemataram

This kicked off when an mayadevi claimed Agarkar/Bangar was a better pair than Kallis/Pollock...

Really? Are Kallis and Pollock Englishmen?? if not then its hard to justify how the Englishmen found their way over here!

If the allrounder did well in a series or so it doesn't make him great, lets look at his career stats,

19 M W 16 Ave:35.6 St/Rt:48.6 4 Wkts:2

The Great English allrounder has less wkts than the number of matches he has actually played.His ave and St/rt is crap!
Not much to write about his batting either.

Unfortunately for this argument, Irani's ODI career had a 5-7 year (can't remember off the top of my head) break in it.

Whether there was a break or not is besides the point, Irani is an ordinary player and i don't see how he would have met much sucess had the injuries not stopped him from playing cricket!

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by masterblaster
A little joke, and this guy starts attacking me! Tells a bit about his upbringing too.

Don't worry, I've been through it too, just take it as it comes, they will attack you without reason so just ignore them! Then you won't get into trouble like I did.:saint:I'm Innocent!!! Reaaaaaalllllyyyyy hehehe

 

[nehrafan]

In short , just avoid doing anything which Rik does, i can ssure you that then you will have no problems:saint:

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by vandemataram

Irani destroyed India and bowled well all series, he also passed 50 in the series, something which Agarkar failed to even get close to. Flintoff scored quite a lot of runs and took useful wickets...Agarkar just got wacked. Answer your question? [/quote]

I can't understand as to why are the Englishmen always trying to compare their cricketers with Indian cricketers?? I mean the topic is about Indian allrounder, and suddenly we see Englishmen comparing Indian allrounders with the Great English allrounder.
Irani is not even a cricket of International level, what's the purpose of mentioning him?? If the allrounder did well in a series or so it doesn't make him great, lets look at his career stats,

19 M W 16 Ave:35.6 St/Rt:48.6 4 Wkts:2

The Great English allrounder has less wkts than the number of matches he has actually played.His ave and St/rt is crap!
Not much to write about his batting either.

NOTE: Judging players by a single series is not wise.The claim that Roonie got a fifty and as such must be better than Ajit is laughable, Ajit recently got 95!! And against English attack, he did got a ton in test cricket!
[Edited on 23/11/2002 by vandemataram] [/quote]

Errrm, well I wasn't the one who brought Irani into the arguement, someone slagged him off earlier. Also it seems that everyone is basing Bangar on this one series, now that IS in topic. If Bangar is International Standard then surely Irani is...I mean look at his stats compared to Bangar, he has more wickets than Bangar and generally better performances. Please please please talk sense here!

 

[vandemataram]

Originally posted by Rik

Errrm, well I wasn't the one who brought Irani into the arguement, someone slagged him off earlier. Also it seems that everyone is basing Bangar on this one series, now that IS in topic. If Bangar is International Standard then surely Irani is...I mean look at his stats compared to Bangar, he has more wickets than Bangar and generally better performances. Please please please talk sense here!

The post is about Bangar, ok you didn't bring Irani into it BUT WHY keep persisting with Irani??

But now that you are bent upon comparison,Bangar has performed poorly with the ball, but has performed much better with the bat than Irani.

 

[BANGered]

For the last time, keep Irani out of this thread, if you want to discuss about him, you can do that in another post.

Bangar may be good or crap, you are free to express your opinion , but please, please, please make sense and stop comparing him with the new English Bothom!