Ganguly = Legend.. Dont u reckon

Sanz · Nov 1, 2004

tooextracool said:
read carefully, ive said hes generally been rubbish for 5 spell, not the entire match. hes been absolutely brilliant in the 6th spell, which is why hes got such a good average.it evens out. if akhtar could bowl as well as he does when he is in rhythm consistently, he would be by far the best bowler in the world and one of the best fast bowlers ever.

I knew you would come up with some explanation. Very typical you, first make a stupid statement, then deny it, after you are shown that you actually said it, you offer an even more stupid explanation. If a bowler is rubbish 5 out of 6 spells(accoding to you), then he must be rubbish.

are you out of your mind? you certainly dont need 20 overs to test a batsman, if you cant get a batsman out in 10 overs, then clearly the batsman has played you well enough.

May be for those 10 overs, If he were able to bowl the next day, it was possible that he would have been able to get one of those so called 6th spells again.

i didnt say that they would have needed 300-350 in the 4th innings, i said that without dravid india would have scored at least 300-350 runs less in their first innings.
certainly would have been game on if india were chasing 200-250 odd in the final innings.

Yeah right, You not only take all the runs scored by Dravid, but also take all the runs scored by other batsman :lol:

who batted with him obviously there would have been a match on. Even If I accept that India made 250-300 in the first innings with Akhtar and without Tendulkar Clicking, I say we would still have made it in the 4th innings especially since Akhtar was out. (Now I am waiting for you to come back with the logic that Akhtar wouldn't have been injured had Dravid not batted that long). If that is not enough, take out every catch taken by him, every run stopped by him. 8-)

tooextracool · Nov 1, 2004

Sanz said:
I knew you would come up with some explanation. Very typical you, first make a stupid statement, then deny it, after you are shown that you actually said it, you offer an even more stupid explanation. If a bowler is rubbish 5 out of 6 spells(accoding to you), then he must be rubbish.

actually its you who keeps filtering and misreading my posts. in the very same thread where you quote from i also said this....
"and my point never was to say that shoaib is not world class, ive simply said that id pick mcgrath,pollock,harmison,gillespie and kaspa ahead of him, especially as my strike bowlers ahead of akhtar."
"akhtar yes, most sides in the world would want him, but hes so bloody inconsistent that id think twice before picking him particularly if hes my strike bowler."
so maybe youd wanna read my posts properly instead of coming up with ridiculous conclusions.

Sanz said:
May be for those 10 overs, If he were able to bowl the next day, it was possible that he would have been able to get one of those so called 6th spells again.

err no, did you watch that game at all? that was the only time in the series where akhtar actually bowled well, and his figures show that too. and he bowled 21 overs not 10 so stop twisting and turning facts to suit you.

Sanz said:
Yeah right, You not only take all the runs scored by Dravid, but also take all the runs scored by other batsman who batted with him obviously there would have been a match on.

err yes of course, dravid was involved in several partnerships with the tailenders that would not have happened if he wasnt at the other end.

Sanz said:
Even If I accept that India made 250-300 in the first innings with Akhtar and without Tendulkar Clicking, I say we would still have made it in the 4th innings especially since Akhtar was out. (Now I am waiting for you to come back with the logic that Akhtar wouldn't have been injured had Dravid not batted that long). If that is not enough, take out every catch taken by him, every run stopped by him.

err scoring 250-300 runs in the 4th innings is no piece of cake against any attack. the pakistani attack might not be brilliant but its not complete rubbish either, and given that a similar indian side struggled against the might WI bowlers in the carribean 2 years ago, i certainly wouldnt be too confident at all. and tendulkar wasnt exactly in the best of form in that series either.

Sanz · Nov 1, 2004

tooextracool said:
so maybe youd wanna read my posts properly instead of coming up with ridiculous conclusions.

BS, You used the word 'Rubbish' and no my conclusions are not rdiculous, most of your posts are, I know it's hard when you are shown that just for the sake of argument you say completely opposite of what you say in another post on a different thread.

tooextracool said:
err no, did you watch that game at all? that was the only time in the series where akhtar actually bowled well, and his figures show that too. and he bowled 21 overs not 10 so stop twisting and turning facts to suit you.

Yes, I watched the game and please dont act as if you watch all the games played in every series. Yes Akhtar bowled well and took couple of wickets too, but he was not getting any support from other end, No pressure for Dravid. I am not the one who says that Akhtar is Rubbish. Story could have been .different If Akhtar had returned the next day

err yes of course, dravid was involved in several partnerships with the tailenders that would not have happened if he wasnt at the other end.

You are so full of BS. First you wanted all the partnerships to be removed from the total score and now you are talking about his partnership with tailenders(which btw was worth 110 runs, out of which 36 were scored by tail).

err scoring 250-300 runs in the 4th innings is no piece of cake against any attack. the pakistani attack might not be brilliant but its not complete rubbish either, and given that a similar indian side struggled against the might WI bowlers in the carribean 2 years ago, i certainly wouldnt be too confident at all. and tendulkar wasnt exactly in the best of form in that series either.

Oh Now none of the Pakistani bowlers are Rubbish (esp when Akhtar was injured and Pakistan were one bowler short ) and the Pitches in Pakistan which used to be flat like other subcontinent pitches are like WI pitches. Despite struggling in WI, India never scored less than 200 in 4th innings despite many decisions going against Indian batsmen especially SRT. You certainly have not watched that series and SRT bat in that series.You assume everything would have gone in the favor of the argument you have been putting in all along.

tooextracool · Nov 1, 2004

Sanz said:
BS, You used the word 'Rubbish' and no my conclusions are not rdiculous, most of your posts are, I know it's hard when you are shown that just for the sake of argument you say completely opposite of what you say in another post on a different thread.

well then you should learn to read an entire sentence, instead of just reading one word in it, 'rubbish', and coming to your own conclusions from it.

Sanz said:
Yes, I watched the game and please dont act as if you watch all the games played in every series.

ive never said anything of the sort, but i can assure you that ive watched most of the series around the world in the last few years and ive definetly watched many more than you have.

Sanz said:
Yes Akhtar bowled well and took couple of wickets too, but he was not getting any support from other end, No pressure for Dravid. I am not the one who says that Akhtar is Rubbish. Story could have been .different If Akhtar had returned the next day

first you said that dravid only played mediocre bowlers, now you are saying that he played one good bowler who didnt get any support.
i might also add that kaneria is no poor bowler either, he might not be brilliant but hes certainly capable.

Sanz said:
You are so full of BS. First you wanted all the partnerships to be removed from the total score

err what?

Sanz said:
and now you are talking about his partnership with tailenders(which btw was worth 110 runs, out of which 36 were scored by tail).

oh of course if dravid wasnt at the other end we would have seen the last 4 wickets contributing 110 runs wouldnt we ?

Sanz said:
Oh Now none of the Pakistani bowlers are Rubbish (esp when Akhtar was injured and Pakistan were one bowler short ) and the Pitches in Pakistan which used to be flat like other subcontinent pitches are like WI pitches. Despite struggling in WI, India never scored less than 200 in 4th innings despite many decisions going against Indian batsmen especially SRT. You certainly have not watched that series and SRT bat in that series.You assume everything would have gone in the favor of the argument you have been putting in all along.

except that its quite conceivable they would be chasing 200-250, not less than 200 that you are suggesting.
and as far as SRT is concerned, i only refuted the fact that SRT was in form.
and ig you think SRT was in brilliant form in that series you obviously are out of your mind. i 'll remind you that in that series bar the 194, he was a miserable failure, and again vs australia both in india and in australia he hasnt done much(bar the one innings at sydney). sachin has been struggling far more than any other indian batsman in the side in the last year and a half.

Sanz · Nov 1, 2004

tooextracool said:
well then you should learn to read an entire sentence, instead of just reading one word in it, 'rubbish', and coming to your own conclusions from it.

And you sir dont need to learn anything continue to Keep flip-flopping. If a bowler is rubbish 5 out of 6 spell, means he is rubbish. Now you try as hard as you can but I know enough about my ability to interpret entire sentence.

ive never said anything of the sort, but i can assure you that ive watched most of the series around the world in the last few years and ive definetly watched many more than you have.

I dont think so, If anyone has watched so much cricket, how can he make so many ridiculous statements.

first you said that dravid only played mediocre bowlers, now you are saying that he played one good bowler who didnt get any support.
i might also add that kaneria is no poor bowler either, he might not be brilliant but hes certainly capable.

I said mediocre because according to you 'Akhtar' is Rubbish, Sami is Rubbish and now you are saying that Kaneria is a good bowler. Akhtar is good but he didn't came into bowl the next day and it made Dravid's job lot easier. :lol:

it is fun to see you accepting Kaneria as a capable bowler, What next, Farhat is a capable bowlers as well. :-O

oh of course if dravid wasnt at the other end we would have seen the last 4 wickets contributing 110 runs wouldnt we ?

No Without Dravid's 270 India would have all out for 0. Because when he came on to bat Indian score was 0, No one would have been able to score a single run without Dravid. Really, If not for Dravid, Indian team would have made history by getting out on 'NULL' and India would have followed on.

It doesn't get any ridiculous than this.

except that its quite conceivable they would be chasing 200-250, not less than 200 that you are suggesting.and as far as SRT is concerned, i only refuted the fact that SRT was in form.and ig you think SRT was in brilliant form in that series you obviously are out of your mind. i 'll remind you that in that series bar the 194, he was a miserable failure, and again vs australia both in india and in australia he hasnt done much(bar the one innings at sydney). sachin has been struggling far more than any other indian batsman in the side in the last year and a half.

200-250 against Sami-Kaneria-Farhat-Akbar is possible any day at least in the subcontinent.

You keep jumping from one series to another, Sachin may not have been in awesome form set by his own high standards, but he has been batting allright contary to what you would like the world to believe. It's funny that you pick on and call Sachin a 'miserable' failure, because so was Dravid (if not for his 270). SRT wasn't even out on at least one occasion. I can see you switchingt into your SRT Bashing mode. Go look at his innings and find out for yourself, how many times he got out because he was out of form. His scores speak for himself and I am not going to defend him any furthur.

tooextracool · Nov 1, 2004

Sanz said:
And you sir dont need to learn anything continue to Keep flip-flopping. If a bowler is rubbish 5 out of 6 spell, means he is rubbish. Now you try as hard as you can but I know enough about my ability to interpret entire sentence.

err no, a bowler who is rubbish for 5 out of 6 spells AND average in his 6th spell is rubbish. a bowler who is rubbish for 5 out of 6 spells and absolutely over the top brilliant in his 6th spell is a good bowler, not as good as someone who bowls well for most of the game but still pretty good. lets say that akhtar bowled 5 spells of 5 overs each for 85 runs and picked up 2 wickets in the match. 2 for 85 is rubbish, but if he ended up taking 3/15 in his final 5 over spell , he ends up with 5 for 100, at an average of 20. not rubbish by any means. and certainly anyone with an average of 24 isnt rubbish.
for you to selectively quote from my posts and ignore some of the other statments is plain rubbish.

Sanz said:
I dont think so, If anyone has watched so much cricket, how can he make so many ridiculous statements.

it may seem rubbish to you, because you dont watch much cricket. certainly anyone who can even suggest that dravid has no heart, obviously hasnt watched too much cricket.
And those who have read some of my theories, know that im right far more often than im wrong.

Sanz said:
I said mediocre because according to you 'Akhtar' is Rubbish,

and you continue to post b/s that ive never said, i recommend that you read my posts clearly instead of making ridiculous conclusions.
regardless, to prove your argument that dravid is useless against good bowlers you used someone elses theory that akhtar is rubbish, even though you know that hes not.....brilliant that.

Sanz said:
Sami is Rubbish and now you are saying that Kaneria is a good bowler.
it is fun to see you accepting Kaneria as a capable bowler, What next, Farhat is a capable bowlers as well.

when have i ever said that kaneria was rubbish?
incase you havent been watching much cricket lately(surprise surprise), kaneria just picked up 10 wickets against SL, add that to his fairly decent test average up 28 odd, id say hes a decent bowler. certainly better than the rubbish you dismiss him as.

Sanz said:
Akhtar is good but he didn't came into bowl the next day and it made Dravid's job lot easier.

by which time dravid had already got to 130 odd, which proves that he cant score against good bowlers.

Sanz said:
No Without Dravid's 270 India would have all out for 0. Because when he came on to bat Indian score was 0, No one would have been able to score a single run without Dravid. Really, If not for Dravid, Indian team would have made history by getting out on 'NULL' and India would have followed on.

It doesn't get any ridiculous than this.

if thats what you believe, i think its fairly obvious that without dravid they would have been 300 runs short at least.

Sanz said:
200-250 against Sami-Kaneria-Farhat-Akbar is possible any day at least in the subcontinent.

its possibly, when did i say it was impossible. but that attack is certainly better than dillon-cuffy-sanford and collins that reaked havvock on india in the WI.
and i wouldnt have been surprised if akhtar had bowled in the 2nd innings if there was a game on. and before i jump to any false conclusions, id like to remind you that not long after that match, he went on to play for durham, without getting any treatment whatsoever.

Sanz said:
You keep jumping from one series to another, Sachin may not have been in awesome form set by his own high standards, but he has been batting allright contary to what you would like the world to believe. It's funny that you pick on and call Sachin a 'miserable' failure, because so was Dravid (if not for his 270). SRT wasn't even out on at least one occasion. I can see you switchingt into your SRT Bashing mode. Go look at his innings and find out for yourself, how many times he got out because he was out of form. His scores speak for himself and I am not going to defend him any furthur.

err tendulkar hadnt done anything in the last 1.5 years, it wasnt just the pak series. he struggled throughout the series vs NZ at home, then struggled outside of sydney in australia and then continued to struggle against pakistan. and i think its fairly obvious that he was out several times,both in australia and in pakistan due to lack of form.

Sanz · Nov 1, 2004

tooextracool said:
err no, a bowler who is rubbish for 5 out of 6 spells AND average in his 6th spell is rubbish. a bowler who is rubbish for 5 out of 6 spells and absolutely over the top brilliant in his 6th spell is a good bowler, not as good as someone who bowls well for most of the game but still pretty good. lets say that akhtar bowled 5 spells of 5 overs each for 85 runs and picked up 2 wickets in the match. 2 for 85 is rubbish, but if he ended up taking 3/15 in his final 5 over spell , he ends up with 5 for 100, at an average of 20. not rubbish by any means. and certainly anyone with an average of 24 isnt rubbish.
for you to selectively quote from my posts and ignore some of the other statments is plain rubbish.

First up, I quoted the Full Post.And no I didn't ignore anything, It's just that you have hard time believing what you said about Akhtar. If you really watched that series then Please tell me how many spells Akhtar bowled and how many times he was 'absolutely' brilliant' those 3/15 occasions you are talking about ?? Let me Guess was it 'ZERO' .

Now go and give a new spin and more clarification on that 2/85 and 3/15 theory. I really look forward to it.

it may seem rubbish to you, because you dont watch much cricket. certainly anyone who can even suggest that dravid has no heart, obviously hasnt watched too much cricket.
And those who have read some of my theories, know that im right far more often than im wrong.

I never claimed to have watched too much cricket, but I do watch most of the matches involving India (provided they are telecasted in US). But I certianly dont make ridiculous claims like you, IMO except for last 1/2 years Dravid has not done justice to the amount of batting talent he possess and has been mostly successful against mediocre attacks. If Ganguly had Dravid's technique, he would be much more successful than Dravid, because he is mentally tougher than him. Watch Dravid bat against Warnie,Mcgrath etc you will see how much he struggles.

and you continue to post b/s that ive never said, i recommend that you read my posts clearly instead of making ridiculous conclusions.regardless, to prove your argument that dravid is useless against good bowlers you used someone elses theory that akhtar is rubbish, even though you know that hes not.....brilliant that.

Yes, I read they are full of wrong information and denials of your posts. You say Akhtar is rubbish, then deny it, then offer another BS theory of 2/85 and 3/15. You are in complete denial mode and refusing to accept what you posted on another thread. I have never said Akhtar is 'rubbish', you did. Dravid scored majority of his runs when Akhtar was not bowling, and you cant deny that.

when have i ever said that kaneria was rubbish?
incase you havent been watching much cricket lately(surprise surprise), kaneria just picked up 10 wickets against SL, add that to his fairly decent test average up 28 odd, id say hes a decent bowler. certainly better than the rubbish you dismiss him as.

Oh so now Kaneria also becomes world class ?? Anyone who has brains and understands cricket, will know that it was the first inning performance of pak bowlers where the majority of the wickets were taken by Razzaq. If it were not for Bangladesh, Kaneria would have been averaging in 50s. or at least high 40s. Surely very good signs of a decent bowler.

by which time dravid had already got to 130 odd, which proves that he cant score against good bowlers.

Yes, he can score once in while after the fielders drop sitters. Watch that match again and see what was Dravi's score when he was dropped.

if thats what you believe, i think its fairly obvious that without dravid they would have been 300 runs short at least.

That leaves us with 170 to win in the 4th innings and not 250-300 you have been suggesting all along.

its possibly, when did i say it was impossible. but that attack is certainly better than dillon-cuffy-sanford and collins that reaked havvock on india in the WI.
and i wouldnt have been surprised if akhtar had bowled in the 2nd innings if there was a game on. and before i jump to any false conclusions, id like to remind you that not long after that match, he went on to play for durham, without getting any treatment whatsoever.

Yeah right !! Akhtar would have returned and would have been really as furious as he was before the injury(not to forget that he had at least couple of weeks to heal before he turned up for Durham) :-

"... Shoaib Akhtar breezed into the Riverside late because of rib problems and then left again without too much of an impression, except for a startling performance in a one dayer with Derbyshire where he took four for 15 runs. "

Also check the following :- http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/3738861.stm

As for Sami-Akbar(fazl)-Farhat-Kaneria being better than dillon-cuffy-sanford and collins, well it just goes on to prove your cricket knowledge. Not to mention the pitches of WI. I am sure you think that Kaneria-Sami-Fazl-Farhat would have been more effective than Dillon-Cuffy-Sanford-Collins. :lol:

Really proves the amount of cricket you watch and understand. I am sure many CW member readily agree with you on this.

err tendulkar hadnt done anything in the last 1.5 years, it wasnt just the pak series. he struggled throughout the series vs NZ at home, then struggled outside of sydney in australia and then continued to struggle against pakistan. and i think its fairly obvious that he was out several times,both in australia and in pakistan due to lack of form.

In Pakistan, Tendulkar batted only 4 times and once he scored 194 not out, once he was given wrong decision and twice out normal, call it lack of form, I will call it Law of averages. He cant go and score centuries in every innings. In Australia, he played 7 innings, not in two, wrong decisions on at least a couple of occasions and a couple normal outs. I wouldn't call it out of form. NZL, yes he was out of form. Only a fool will say that Tendulkar has done nothing in last 1.5 years when some of his highest scores have been made in last 2 years. The only difference is others (who used to be spectators) have also contributed with the bat in recent times.

maxpower · Nov 1, 2004

Ganguly is the best option to captain IND given what IND captains have to deal with (politics, BCCI, media, unexpected results, etc). But he is not legend in anyway.

tooextracool · Nov 1, 2004

Sanz said:
First up, I quoted the Full Post.And no I didn't ignore anything, It's just that you have hard time believing what you said about Akhtar.

i made several comments about akthar in that thread, you conveniently picked one of them which does not explain clearly what my point was. as i showed you earlier, i did in fact say he was world class, so enough with you twisting my comments for me.

Sanz said:
If you really watched that series then Please tell me how many spells Akhtar bowled and how many times he was 'absolutely' brilliant' those 3/15 occasions you are talking about ?? Let me Guess was it 'ZERO' .
Now go and give a new spin and more clarification on that 2/85 and 3/15 theory. I really look forward to it.

he struggled for the entire multan test, certainly struggled in the first innings at lahore, however he was a lot better while not at his best in the 2nd innings at lahore.in the third test, particularly in his spell after lunch he was devastating with a beauty to tendulkar and then knocked laxman's middle stump off the ground. to say that shoaib was rubbish throughout that series is simply ignorance, especially at rawalpindi where he was probably the best bowler on either side.

Sanz said:
I never claimed to have watched too much cricket, but I do watch most of the matches involving India (provided they are telecasted in US). But I certianly dont make ridiculous claims like you, IMO except for last 1/2 years Dravid has not done justice to the amount of batting talent he possess and has been mostly successful against mediocre attacks. If Ganguly had Dravid's technique, he would be much more successful than Dravid, because he is mentally tougher than him. Watch Dravid bat against Warnie,Mcgrath etc you will see how much he struggles.

he hasnt done justice to his batting talent? hes been averaging over 50 for the last 7 years, hes performed against every country in every country and on every type of wicket.
and to compare him with ganguly who only seems to score on the flattest of tracks against the most mediocre bowlers is just plain ignorance. remind me what ganguly has ever done against mcgrath and warne? i'll remind you,in 00 against australia in australia, he averaged 29, in 00-01 in india he averaged 18. against SA, ganguly averaged 22 in india in 96/97, in SA he averaged 33 in 97, in the 00 series at home he averaged a pathetic 12, and then in SA a year later he averaged 30. what did ganguly do in NZ in 03? he averaged a brilliant 7.25. oh yes our legendary ganguly is actually just another FTB who scores all his runs against mediocre sides. where does all this mentally tough thing come in? certainly his record against quality bowling suggests that he isnt all that mentally tough at all.
and dravid struggles against mcgrath and warne? i certainly dont remember that when he scored that 180 and 81 in the 01 series. evidence suggests that ganguly is the one that struggles against them.

Sanz said:
Yes, I read they are full of wrong information and denials of your posts. You say Akhtar is rubbish, then deny it, then offer another BS theory of 2/85 and 3/15. You are in complete denial mode and refusing to accept what you posted on another thread. I have never said Akhtar is 'rubbish', you did.

my dear friend, if YOU dont think akhtar is rubbish then why use it to prove your argument that dravid is rubbish against good bowlers?

Sanz said:
Dravid scored majority of his runs when Akhtar was not bowling, and you cant deny that.

yes all 134 of them......

Sanz said:
Oh so now Kaneria also becomes world class ?? If it were not for Bangladesh, Kaneria would have been averaging in 50s. or at least high 40s. Surely very good signs of a decent bowler.

you have a serious reading deficiency, not once have i said that kaneria was world class. you seem to think that there are 2 extremes bowlers must either be rubbish or world class, when that is clearly not the case.
and his average even if you take out his performances against bangladesh wouldnt even reach 40, let alone 50. i'll remind you that kaneria took wickets at 25 a piece against SA, no lean feat whatsoever.

Sanz said:
Anyone who has brains and understands cricket, will know that it was the first inning performance of pak bowlers where the majority of the wickets were taken by Razzaq..

err yes i know razzaq took more wickets than kaneria in the first innings, but sherlock, why dont you look at who took the most wickets in the 2nd innings or for the match?

Sanz said:
Yes, he can score once in while after the fielders drop sitters. Watch that match again and see what was Dravi's score when he was dropped.

dropped catches are a part of every game im afraid, and certainly dravid has played several chanceless innings in the past.
if lara had been given out when he was on 0, hayden would still have the world record....

Sanz said:
That leaves us with 170 to win in the 4th innings and not 250-300 you have been suggesting all along.

err i said 200-250, so 170-200 depending on how much the tail would have scored without dravid. again, last innings,wearing pitch given kumble got 4 wickets, i certainly wouldnt rule out a loss.

Sanz said:
Yeah right !! Akhtar would have returned and would have been really as furious as he was before the injury(not to forget that he had at least couple of weeks to heal before he turned up for Durham) :-

not to forget that he still had that injury after playing those games against durham, and was told to rest. therefore he was still carrying that injury while he was playing for durham, certainly suggests that he could have bowled for pakistan in that final innings too.

Sanz said:
"... Shoaib Akhtar breezed into the Riverside late because of rib problems and then left again without too much of an impression, except for a startling performance in a one dayer with Derbyshire where he took four for 15 runs. "

and even with the injury he ended up taking 4/15 suggesting that he was still capable of bowling quite well, even with that injury.

Sanz said:
As for Sami-Akbar(fazl)-Farhat-Kaneria being better than dillon-cuffy-sanford and collins, well it just goes on to prove your cricket knowledge.

actually it goes to show your cricketing knowledge, how many of those WI bowlers are still in the WI side? only collins and even he has shown a large amt of improvement since then. kaneria and sami are still playing for pakistan, as is akthar, certainly a far better bowling attack than the one in the WI.

Sanz said:
Not to mention the pitches of WI. I am sure you think that Kaneria-Sami-Fazl-Farhat would have been more effective than Dillon-Cuffy-Sanford-Collins.
Really proves the amount of cricket you watch and understand. I am sure many CW member readily agree with you on this.

you are a real fool, the pitches in the WI are actually a lot flatter than the ones in pakistan and yet the indian batting lineup failed against those 4 bowlers. certainly suggests that had they played on a wearing pitch and against marginally better bowlers, they might just have done worse.

Sanz said:
In Pakistan, Tendulkar batted only 4 times and once he scored 194 not out, once he was given wrong decision and twice out normal, call it lack of form, I will call it Law of averages. He cant go and score centuries in every innings.

there was plenty of doubt about that decision, certainly no one can simply call it a wrong decision, it was marginal, tendulkar is short certainly no one can prove conclusively that it was going over the stumps or not.its one of those that goes either way

Sanz said:
In Australia, he played 7 innings, not in two, wrong decisions on at least a couple of occasions and a couple normal outs.

err it was just one bad decision at brisbane, in every other game that he got out, he was quite clearly out.

Sanz said:
I wouldn't call it out of form. NZL, yes he was out of form. Only a fool will say that Tendulkar has done nothing in last 1.5 years when some of his highest scores have been made in last 2 years. The only difference is others (who used to be spectators) have also contributed with the bat in recent times.

some of his highest scores, yes, but other than that hes been poor. and those highest scores not surprisingly came on the flattest off wickets, when he was barely even required to score anyways. anyone would know that sachin has been in the worst slump of his career in the last 1.5 years.

SJS · Nov 2, 2004

tooextracool said:
i made several comments about akthar in that thread, you conveniently picked one of them which does not explain clearly what my point was. as i showed you earlier, i did in fact say he was world class, so enough with you twisting my comments for me.

......................

......some of his highest scores, yes, but other than that hes been poor. and those highest scores not surprisingly came on the flattest off wickets, when he was barely even required to score anyways. anyone would know that sachin has been in the worst slump of his career in the last 1.5 years.

That post rates 40.5 inches (well over a meter) on my monitor :-O

Sanz · Nov 2, 2004

tooextracool said:
i made several comments about akthar in that thread, you conveniently picked one of them which does not explain clearly what my point was. as i showed you earlier, i did in fact say he was world class, so enough with you twisting my comments for me.

I picked the one where you described Shoaib was 'Rubbish' in 5 out of 6 spells. You clearly have a problem accepting that it was your post which is contradicting what you said on this thread. I posted your comments as they were without making any changes. So dont accuse me of something I didn't do.

he struggled for the entire multan test, certainly struggled in the first innings at lahore, however he was a lot better while not at his best in the 2nd innings at lahore.in the third test, particularly in his spell after lunch he was devastating with a beauty to tendulkar and then knocked laxman's middle stump off the ground. to say that shoaib was rubbish throughout that series is simply ignorance, especially at rawalpindi where he was probably the best bowler on either side.

Once again you are misleading people and making it sound as if Sachin and Laxman were out in a single spell. There r was a partnership of 130 runs in between those two outs. Shoaib had bowled 3 spells in between, so your statement that Shoaib is 'rubbish' for most spells isn't really correct. You are the one who says Shoaib is Rubbish, i have always acknowledged Shoaib as a world class bowler. Btw Dravid faced only 4 overs of that Fiery spell, between Lunch and Tea, and during that period he got two lives, one of Sami and another of Kaneria, Both sitters. He got two more lives on his way to 270.

he hasnt done justice to his batting talent? hes been averaging over 50 for the last 7 years, hes performed against every country in every country and on every type of wicket.

Are you Crazy or what ?? Why dont you look at his averages before making stupid statements. Every time he played (before 2001-02 season) teams like NZ, Zim & WI, his average went up, and every time he played good bowling attacks his average came falling down. I know how he performed in Australia when Mcgrath and Warnie were bowling to him in 2000 or When Pakistan toured India in 1998 or when India played SA in 2000 and 2002.

and to compare him with ganguly who only seems to score on the flattest of tracks against the most mediocre bowlers is just plain ignorance. remind me what ganguly has ever done against mcgrath and warne?

Where have I compared Ganguly with Dravid ?? I have alway said If Ganguly had Dravid's Technique, he would have averaged much more because he is mentally tough. Unfortunately Ganguly doesn't have the technique of Dravid so his limitation, despite all that he averages a 40+ in Tests and ODIs he is one of the best batsmen of all time which Dravid can only Dream of.

Btw, Before becoming the captain Ganguly's Test average was as good as Dravid's (if not better) that is despite having a pathetic batting technique. And let's not even discuss ODIS, because Ganguly beats Mr. Wall Hands down. Mr. wall was once kicked out of the ODI team and there was a joke going around in India that Keep only one fielder in the ground and Dravid's shot wouldn't be able to clear that fielder. Clearly captancy has got Ganguly and anyone who has followed Ganguly's career will agree with that. That is not to say that Ganguly is better batsman, he never was, he never will be, but mentally he is 1000 times tougher than the so called 'Wall'.

i'll remind you,in 00 against australia in australia, he averaged 29, in 00-01 in india he averaged 18. against SA, ganguly averaged 22 in india in 96/97, in SA he averaged 33 in 97, in the 00 series at home he averaged a pathetic 12, and then in SA a year later he averaged 30. what did ganguly do in NZ in 03? he averaged a brilliant 7.25. oh yes our legendary ganguly is actually just another FTB who scores all his runs against mediocre sides. where does all this mentally tough thing come in? certainly his record against quality bowling suggests that he isnt all that mentally tough at all.

You clearly missed Ganguly's inning of 144 at Brisbane only test where Gillespie was fully fit and Dravid scored a mighty '1' and Ganguly scored a miserable 144. It's funny that you talk about Gagnuly's average during 1999-2000 Australia tour, Well let me tell you in that series Ganguly scored 29, and dravid scored a mighty 15.50, Ganguly's average was clearly double than Dravid's despite having poor technique. In 2001-02 tour of SA, Dravid scored at an avg of 25.50, Ganguly scored @28.50. when Pak toured India in 1998-99, Dravid averaged 31.25, Gangs avg was 43.66. Once again that doesn't mean that Ganguly is better, it just that mentally he is much stronger and had it not been for captaincy, he would have performed much better in Tests.

and dravid struggles against mcgrath and warne? i certainly dont remember that when he scored that 180 and 81 in the 01 series. evidence suggests that ganguly is the one that struggles against them.

Clearly you have seen only those innings of Dravid, Dravid was called as Warnie's bunny for some reason, check out his performance against Warnie between 1997 and that 180. Warnie used to get him out at will. I guess you
have not watched that.

my dear friend, if YOU dont think akhtar is rubbish then why use it to prove your argument that dravid is rubbish against good bowlers?

No you think Akhtar is rubbish, I have never said that Akhtar is rubbish and never will. IMO had Akhtar returned to bowl the next day, it would have been difficult for Dravid to score 270 runs despite getting 4 lives, Akhtar is just too good.

and his average even if you take out his performances against bangladesh wouldnt even reach 40, let alone 50. i'll remind you that kaneria took wickets at 25 a piece against SA, no lean feat whatsoever.

Still it is 35+(thanks to 10 wickets in last test), worse than average in my book and it is going to get worse.

err yes i know razzaq took more wickets than kaneria in the first innings, but sherlock, why dont you look at who took the most wickets in the 2nd innings or for the match?[/ quote]

You clearly dont understand cricket, Despite Kaneria taking 7 wickets in second innings SL scored 400+ and that proves that there was hardly anything great about his bowling. It was the first day batting performance of SL which cost them the match, even a 5 year old boy can tell you that. Had SL scored another 75-100 runs in the first innings, they would clearly have sealed the series. This is as simple as that, but you will clearly not understand that.

dropped catches are a part of every game im afraid, and certainly dravid has played several chanceless innings in the past.
if lara had been given out when he was on 0, hayden would still have the world record....

Click to expand...

4 dropped catches aren't part of every game, especially when you have got only one bowler short. If dropped catches are part of the game then why crucify Parthiv Patel for dropping them ??

err i said 200-250, so 170-200 depending on how much the tail would have scored without dravid. again, last innings,wearing pitch given kumble got 4 wickets, i certainly wouldnt rule out a loss.

Click to expand...

Flip-Flop. Kaneria and Farhat are no Kumble. There was no Akhtar

not to forget that he still had that injury after playing those games against durham, and was told to rest. therefore he was still carrying that injury while he was playing for durham, certainly suggests that he could have bowled for pakistan in that final innings too.

Click to expand...

There was a two week gap in between, which would have healed Akhtar's injury quite a bit, No?? Ohr No everything would have gone in your favor, India would have been 300-350 short, Akhtar would have returned to bowl, Kaneria would have bowled like Kumble..really so much certainty in your assumptions amazes me.

and even with the injury he ended up taking 4/15 suggesting that he was still capable of bowling quite well, even with that injury.

Click to expand...

And that was after couple of weeks, I am sure you would assume that in those two weeks his injury wouldn't have healed a bit. Btw 4/15 against a club side doesn't mean that Akhtar was going to do it in the 4th innings of the test match.

actually it goes to show your cricketing knowledge, how many of those WI bowlers are still in the WI side? only collins and even he has shown a large amt of improvement since then. kaneria and sami are still playing for pakistan, as is akthar, certainly a far better bowling attack than the one in the WI.

Click to expand...

Collins is around, So is Dillon(didn't they recall him during ICC KO trophy?), Sanford is also around, just becaue he is not picked doesn't mean he is worse than Sami-Akbar-Kaneria etc. Apparently almost all of them avg better than Sami.

Kaneria and Sami are still playing because Pakistan do not have anyone better, Umar Gul is injured, So is Shabir Ahmad, Akhtar gets injured in pretty much every series, New bowlers that are coming up are no good either.

you are a real fool, the pitches in the WI are actually a lot flatter than the ones in pakistan and yet the indian batting lineup failed against those 4 bowlers. certainly suggests that had they played on a wearing pitch and against marginally better bowlers, they might just have done worse.

Click to expand...

You are a real idiot, who generalizes everything, Antigua is a flat track, but calling pitches like port of spain and Barbados as FT is really height of stupidity. As for your repeated mentioning of our batting failing against those bowlers because India scored 395/7, 339, 218, 102, 296,513, 212, 252 and that is despite some key decisions going against India. I dont see a major batting failure except one inning. Note that Only Laxman,Dravid, Tendulkar & Ganguly from current team were there, India were without Sehwag, Chopra & Patel, India never got a decent start.

It's funny that now are claiming that Pakistani pitches are better than WI pitches, next time you remind us about how India has never won a series outside sub-continent(since they in are supposed to be FTs), I will quote this post of yours and wait for you to give a new spin.

there was plenty of doubt about that decision, certainly no one can simply call it a wrong decision

Click to expand...

Only a biased person like you will not call it a wrong decision.

err it was just one bad decision at brisbane, in every other game that he got out, he was quite clearly out.

Click to expand...

Yeah Right, The commentator at cricinfo must have made this up. this was in the 2nd innings of second test :-

47.1 MacGill to Tendulkar, OUT: pads up to a leg break, Rudi gives it
out, was it missing off, maybe so

India 149/3, Partnership of 70
SR Tendulkar lbw b MacGill 37 (59b 5x4 0x6)
R Dravid 38* (89b 4x4) SCG MacGill 13.1-1-52-2

some of his highest scores, yes, but other than that hes been poor. and those highest scores not surprisingly came on the flattest off wickets, when he was barely even required to score anyways. anyone would know that sachin has been in the worst slump of his career in the last 1.5 years.

Click to expand...

Yes, Yes Yes, Sachin Tendulkar's 24,000 runs in international cricket have all been scored on flat tracks, so are his 70 centuries and 100+ half centuries. He is a flat track bully and most over rated player ever, Haver heard it all, ry something new.

Sanz · Nov 2, 2004

SJS said:
That post rates 40.5 inches (well over a meter) on my monitor

You either need a bigger monitor or need to reduce the font size.

tooextracool · Nov 2, 2004

Sanz said:
I picked the one where you described Shoaib was 'Rubbish' in 5 out of 6 spells. You clearly have a problem accepting that it was your post which is contradicting what you said on this thread. I posted your comments as they were without making any changes. So dont accuse me of something I didn't do.

i have already accepted it, you are the one who has a problem accepting the fact that the word 'rubbish' cant be used in the same sentence as shoaib akhtar unless he is rubbish himself. ive clearly explained my post, hes generally rubbish 5 out of 6 times in a match and hes brilliant in the 6th spell. ive even gone on to show that its possible to get good figures bowling that way and explained his low average. so enough of your b/s.

Sanz said:
Once again you are misleading people and making it sound as if Sachin and Laxman were out in a single spell. There r was a partnership of 130 runs in between those two outs. Shoaib had bowled 3 spells in between, so your statement that Shoaib is 'rubbish' for most spells isn't really correct. You are the one who says Shoaib is Rubbish, i have always acknowledged Shoaib as a world class bowler.Btw Dravid faced only 4 overs of that Fiery spell, between Lunch and Tea, and during that period he got two lives, one of Sami and another of Kaneria, Both sitters. He got two more lives on his way to 270.

you seriously have a problem reading, do you know what the word 'generally' means? i've said clearly that akhtar bowled brilliantly throughout that match, and i've said that generally hes rubbish for 5 out of 6 spells in a match, not every ****** game of his entire career.
as far as dravid is concerned, yes he was extremely fortunate, but certainly hes performed brilliantly on too many other occasions to make up for that anyways.

Sanz said:
Are you Crazy or what ?? Why dont you look at his averages before making stupid statements. Every time he played (before 2001-02 season) teams like NZ, Zim & WI, his average went up, and every time he played good bowling attacks his average came falling down. I know how he performed in Australia when Mcgrath and Warnie were bowling to him in 2000 or When Pakistan toured India in 1998 or when India played SA in 2000 and 2002.

everytime he played good bowling attacks his avg came falling down? either you arent very good with the english language or you're just plain stupid. did his avg come falling down when he played SA in 97? did his average come falling down when he played in the WI in 97? or vs australia in 00-01?
remind me again, in what country, or what type of wicket has dravid not succeeded on again?

Sanz said:
Where have I compared Ganguly with Dravid ?? I have alway said If Ganguly had Dravid's Technique, he would have averaged much more because he is mentally tough. Unfortunately Ganguly doesn't have the technique of Dravid so his limitation, despite all that he averages a 40+ in Tests and ODIs he is one of the best batsmen of all time which Dravid can only Dream of.

seriously do you know anything about what makes a great batsman?
if you think that technique and mental toughness is all that makes a good batsman then you are as crazy as you've made yourself out to be. theres also a matter of shot selection, again something in which dravid is far better than ganguly. and again what makes you say that ganguly is mentally tougher than dravid?certainly his failures against quality bowling sides suggest that hes not.

Sanz said:
Btw, Before becoming the captain Ganguly's Test average was as good as Dravid's (if not better) that is despite having a pathetic batting technique.

dravid was actually averaging 2 runs more than him at the point, and if you think dravids average was inflated by playing poor bowling attacks on flat pitches look at ganguly's record against australia and SA pre captaincy, where he failed in almost every series. in his last 2 series before becoming captain he was dismal averaging 29 against aus and 12 against SA, before he was made captain.

Sanz said:
And let's not even discuss ODIS, because Ganguly beats Mr. Wall Hands down. Mr. wall was once kicked out of the ODI team and there was a joke going around in India that Keep only one fielder in the ground and Dravid's shot wouldn't be able to clear that fielder. Clearly captancy has got Ganguly and anyone who has followed Ganguly's career will agree with that. That is not to say that Ganguly is better batsman, he never was, he never will be, but mentally he is 1000 times tougher than the so called 'Wall'..

this is about the stupidest statement ive ever seen. whether ganguly is mentally tougher than dravid is questionable in itself, given that he always fails against the good bowling sides, but to say that ganguly is 1000 times tougher than dravid is just plain ridiculous.
as far as ODIs is concerned,while ganguly is no doubt better, it is ludicrous the way you consider dravid to be so significantly worse, especially considering that he only averages around 3 runs less than ganguly.

Sanz said:
You clearly missed Ganguly's inning of 144 at Brisbane only test where Gillespie was fully fit and Dravid scored a mighty '1' and Ganguly scored a miserable 144.

you certainly know how to make yourself into a fool, gillespie was never 'fully fit' at any point of that series, its just you trying to manipulate facts to suit yourself. that was in fact the first game that he played back from injury and he was visibly nowhere near his best. if ganguly was as good as you claim he is he would have averaged a lot more against a fully fit australian side in all the other series that hes played against them

Sanz said:
It's funny that you talk about Gagnuly's average during 1999-2000 Australia tour, Well let me tell you in that series Ganguly scored 29, and dravid scored a mighty 15.50, Ganguly's average was clearly double than Dravid's despite having poor technique. In 2001-02 tour of SA, Dravid scored at an avg of 25.50, Ganguly scored @28.50. when Pak toured India in 1998-99, Dravid averaged 31.25, Gangs avg was 43.66. Once again that doesn't mean that Ganguly is better, it just that mentally he is much stronger and had it not been for captaincy, he would have performed much better in Tests.

well done in finding 3 series in their entire career where ganguly was better, and amazingly enough in 2 out of those 3 series, ganguly was a failure himself anyways. just because he wasnt as miserable a failure as dravid was it doesnt make his performances any better.
now lets look at some other comparisons shall we?
GANGULY DRAVID
vs SA 97 21 29
in SA 97 34 55
in WI 97 19 72
vs aus 98 33 45
vs SA 00 12 24
vs aus 01 18 55
in zim 4.67 69
in Sl 01 33 47
in NZ 03 7 33

theres our mentally tough legend!!!

Sanz · Nov 3, 2004

tooextracool said:
i have already accepted it, you are the one who has a problem accepting the fact that the word 'rubbish' cant be used in the same sentence as shoaib akhtar unless he is rubbish himself. ive clearly explained my post, hes generally rubbish 5 out of 6 times in a match and hes brilliant in the 6th spell. ive even gone on to show that its possible to get good figures bowling that way and explained his low average. so enough of your b/s.

Yeah, enough of your BS too, Please try it with someone who will accept your stupid explanation. Here is another post of yours calling Akhtar as inconsisten and how he can never be relied :-

oh no, akhtar has always been inconsistent so you can never really rely on him

I look forward to hear a new spin from you on the above, I wont be surprised if you define the word 'NEVER' and give a completely new meaning to suit your argument same way you have done after calling Akhtar Rubbish.

you seriously have a problem reading, do you know what the word 'generally' means? i've said clearly that akhtar bowled brilliantly throughout that match, and i've said that generally hes rubbish for 5 out of 6 spells in a match, not every ****** game of his entire career.
as far as dravid is concerned, yes he was extremely fortunate, but certainly hes performed brilliantly on too many other occasions to make up for that anyways.

Shut up,for your own sake, before I expose your contradictory posts more and more (not that people here dont know). You when were debating about how Tendulkar did good against bowlers like Akhtar and Gillespie, you debated for five days convincing that Akhtar was an ordinary bowler who bowls one devastating spell in about 5 Tests and Gillespie is really an ordinary bowler. You will make Chauhan a world class bowler to suit your argument, you will make Akhtar world class when talkin about Dravid but will argue to death to make him Ordinary when talking about Tendulkar.

Unfortunately, for you, these tricks dont work with me.

Sanz · Nov 3, 2004

tooextracool said:
as far as dravid is concerned, yes he was extremely fortunate, but certainly hes performed brilliantly on too many other occasions to make up for that anyways.

Thank you, at last you got it that Dravid was very fortunate with at least 4 lives and Akhtar being injured to score that 270. There is no disputing that Dravid has been Brilliant on some occasion, but certianly those occasions aren't too many as you would like to us to believe. Dravid is an extremely talented batsman (which I have never denied) but it took 5 years for him to do justice to his talent, until his 180 against Australia at Calcutta. Before that score Dravid hardly had any decent scores against good attacks.

everytime he played good bowling attacks his avg came falling down? either you arent very good with the english language or you're just plain stupid. did his avg come falling down when he played SA in 97? did his average come falling down when he played in the WI in 97? or vs australia in 00-01?
remind me again, in what country, or what type of wicket has dravid not succeeded on again?

Here is his series wise avg :- 62.33( in Eng), 40 (home, vs. Aus), 29.16( Home, Vs. SA), 55.40 (in SA), 72(in WI), 25.66(in SL), 76(Home Vs. SL, No Murali for most part), 44.60 (home Vs. Aus no Mcgrath/Gillespie, injured Warnie), 81(in Zim), 107(in NZ), 31.25 (home Vs. Pak), 15.50 (in Aus), 23.50 (Home Vs.SA), 69( in Bd), 432(vs. Zim @home)

That was before 2000 series vs.Aus in India (180 Calcutta tes). After that yes has been very successful.

seriously do you know anything about what makes a great batsman?
if you think that technique and mental toughness is all that makes a good batsman then you are as crazy as you've made yourself out to be. theres also a matter of shot selection, again something in which dravid is far better than ganguly. and again what makes you say that ganguly is mentally tougher than dravid?certainly his failures against quality bowling sides suggest that hes not.

Ofcourse Dravid is far better than Ganguly, technique wise but Ganguly was right up there with him until he became captain proves that despite Dravid being so much better than him in pretty much every aspect of the game (except mental toughness) was that much better really. Look at how Dravid has performed when he has been the captain of Indian side.

dravid was actually averaging 2 runs more than him at the point, and if you think dravids average was inflated by playing poor bowling attacks on flat pitches look at ganguly's record against australia and SA pre captaincy, where he failed in almost every series. in his last 2 series before becoming captain he was dismal averaging 29 against aus and 12 against SA, before he was made captain.

When Indian team returned from Australia in 1999-2000, Dravid's Career avg was 48.69, Ganguly's career avg. was 48.19. Really great difference

. If he was dismal,then so was Dravid. He clearly was more successful than Dravid in International Cricket(counting both Odis & Tests) and that went in his favor for the captaincy positionn, Dravid's position wasn't even sure in ODIs.

this is about the stupidest statement ive ever seen. whether ganguly is mentally tougher than dravid is questionable in itself, given that he always fails against the good bowling sides, but to say that ganguly is 1000 times tougher than dravid is just plain ridiculous.
as far as ODIs is concerned,while ganguly is no doubt better, it is ludicrous the way you consider dravid to be so significantly worse, especially considering that he only averages around 3 runs less than ganguly.

That is the problem with people like you whose entire analysis is based on averages. Why dont you go and take a look at the ODIs India has because of Ganguly's performance both with the ball and bat. Dravid will take an entire century to win those many ODIs. Ganguly despite his poor technique has managed to outclass him in ODIS. Not to forget that he has been batting under extreme presure, given up his spot to Sehwag and had to deal with so much as a captain.

you certainly know how to make yourself into a fool, gillespie was never 'fully fit' at any point of that series, its just you trying to manipulate facts to suit yourself. that was in fact the first game that he played back from injury and he was visibly nowhere near his best.

What are you talking about, Gillespie was fully fit until the 2nd inning of the Adelaide test. Go and watch him bowl in that test again before claiming that he wasn't fully fit, Gillespie had bowled in previous test series against Zimbawe as well after returning from the injury.

tooextracool · Nov 3, 2004

Sanz said:
Clearly you have seen only those innings of Dravid, Dravid was called as Warnie's bunny for some reason, check out his performance against Warnie between 1997 and that 180. Warnie used to get him out at will. I guess you
have not watched that.

certainly warne has caused dravid problems,in fact i was the one who first mentioned that on these forums but dravid has never exactly been his bunny.
if dravid was his bunny, he would not have ended up scoring that 81 or the 180, let alone averaging 45 in the 98 series at home.

Sanz said:
No you think Akhtar is rubbish, I have never said that Akhtar is rubbish and never will. IMO had Akhtar returned to bowl the next day, it would have been difficult for Dravid to score 270 runs despite getting 4 lives, Akhtar is just too good.

do you not understand english?
1) not once have i said that akthar was rubbish, its you who cant accept the fact that he can be rubbish for 5 out of 6 spells and still come out with good figures.
2) how many times do i have to say it.....you are the one that has mentioned that dravid is useless against quality bowlers, it is your argument, not mine. so if its your argument then use your own theories. do not tell me that because someone else thinks that akhtar is rubbish, even though i dont believe that he is, i believe that dravid can only score against useless bowlers.

Sanz said:
Still it is 35+(thanks to 10 wickets in last test), worse than average in my book and it is going to get worse.

oh yes, 10 wickets against SL it does appear as though he is getting worse, and his average against SA at home does go on to prove that he is rubbish isnt he?
in your book bowlers like ashley giles and price are all rubbish too, i would presume.

Sanz said:
You clearly dont understand cricket, Despite Kaneria taking 7 wickets in second innings SL scored 400+ and that proves that there was hardly anything great about his bowling. It was the first day batting performance of SL which cost them the match, even a 5 year old boy can tell you that. Had SL scored another 75-100 runs in the first innings, they would clearly have sealed the series. This is as simple as that, but you will clearly not understand that.

you are really a fool, if everyone else in the attack is so mediocre that they cant pick up any wickets in the 2nd innings, why should kaneria be blamed for it? he took his wickets at less than 17 a piece, certainly did his job. if it werent for kaneria pakistan would probably not even have come close to winning that game, so dont even go on about how their first innings performance cost them.

Sanz said:
Flip-Flop. Kaneria and Farhat are no Kumble. There was no Akhtar

no they are not, but certainly kaneria is capable of turning the ball and picking up wickets, as shown in his recent performance.

Sanz said:
There was a two week gap in between, which would have healed Akhtar's injury quite a bit, No?? Ohr No everything would have gone in your favor, India would have been 300-350 short, Akhtar would have returned to bowl, Kaneria would have bowled like Kumble..really so much certainty in your assumptions amazes me.

there is no certainity, there is certanity in your opinion that india would have won without dravid, when ive clearly stated that it might have gone otherwise.
and 2 weeks rest doesnt exactly heal a back injury, and given that he was still injured when he was playing for durham, it suggests that it wasnt healed at all.

Sanz said:
And that was after couple of weeks, I am sure you would assume that in those two weeks his injury wouldn't have healed a bit. Btw 4/15 against a club side doesn't mean that Akhtar was going to do it in the 4th innings of the test match.

no injuries like those dont heal a bit, and even if it did, playing those games only made it worse than what it was before.
and 4/15 suggests that he was still capable of bowling, and bowling well enough to pick up wickets.

Sanz said:
Collins is around, So is Dillon(didn't they recall him during ICC KO trophy?), Sanford is also around, just becaue he is not picked doesn't mean he is worse than Sami-Akbar-Kaneria etc. Apparently almost all of them avg better than Sami.

this is got to be the post of the year.
first of all theres something called test match cricket, dillon is not in the test match side.
sanford better than sami-akbar- kaneria? have you ever seen sanford bowl? hes quite possibly the worst bowler to ever play as many tests for the WI.

Sanz said:
Kaneria and Sami are still playing because Pakistan do not have anyone better, Umar Gul is injured, So is Shabir Ahmad, Akhtar gets injured in pretty much every series, New bowlers that are coming up are no good either..

oh believe me there are certainly far more options in the bowling department in pakistan than they are in the WI. sami is rubbish, i'll give you that, but even he is better than sanford and cuffy.
and kaneria is certainly a pretty decent bowler, i'll remind you that hes been picked ahead of saqlain and mushtaq.......

Sanz said:
You are a real idiot, who generalizes everything, Antigua is a flat track, but calling pitches like port of spain and Barbados as FT is really height of stupidity. As for your repeated mentioning of our batting failing against those bowlers because India scored 395/7, 339, 218, 102, 296,513, 212, 252 and that is despite some key decisions going against India. I dont see a major batting failure except one inning. Note that Only Laxman,Dravid, Tendulkar & Ganguly from current team were there, India were without Sehwag, Chopra & Patel, India never got a decent start.

did you watch the game in barbados at all?
there was a little movement in the first 2 sessions or so, after that it was extremely flat. which is why the WI ended up getting nearly 400 on that wicket.
and its hardly surprising that you left out jamaica, another flat wicket on which the indian batting lineup failed. and we all know that 212 and 252 are not failures, especially when the other side scores 422.
as far as the indian batting lineup is concerned...yes only 4 out of their 7 players played in that series. and incase you havent realised, parthiv and chopra arent part of the 'current' team, they;ve both been axed.

Sanz said:
It's funny that now are claiming that Pakistani pitches are better than WI pitches, next time you remind us about how India has never won a series outside sub-continent(since they in are supposed to be FTs), I will quote this post of yours and wait for you to give a new spin.

is everything about extremes for you? i mean does a bowler either have to be brilliant or rubbish? a pitch cant be less flat than another wicket without being seamer friendly?
you really know a lot about cricket......

Sanz said:
Only a biased person like you will not call it a wrong decision.

or rather someone who watched the game a lot closer than you did.

Sanz said:
Yeah Right, The commentator at cricinfo must have made this up. this was in the 2nd innings of second test :-

47.1 MacGill to Tendulkar, OUT: pads up to a leg break, Rudi gives it
out, was it missing off, maybe so

India 149/3, Partnership of 70
SR Tendulkar lbw b MacGill 37 (59b 5x4 0x6)
R Dravid 38* (89b 4x4) SCG MacGill 13.1-1-52-2

oh really? that is about the worst piece of garbage i have ever seen. i watched that entire game, and i can assure you that tendulkar was absolutely 100% out. if you had watched that game you would know that tendulkar padded up to a straighter ball from macgill and was caught plum in front. in fact i have a little quote from the cricinfo match report that you might wanna look at.....
"Tendulkar failed to read a straighter one which pitched on middle-and-leg, shouldered arms, and was trapped in front for 37 (149 for 3)."
oh wait heres another quote
" Tendulkar showed brief glimpses of being back to his normal self before padding up to one that pitched in line."

and i'll remind you that match reports are more often than not more accurate than commentaries, because they are usually written by professionals.

Sanz said:
Yes, Yes Yes, Sachin Tendulkar's 24,000 runs in international cricket have all been scored on flat tracks, so are his 70 centuries and 100+ half centuries. He is a flat track bully and most over rated player ever, Haver heard it all, ry something new.

and this is connected to his poor form how?
seriously i've made many posts about how tendulkar is overrated etc etc, but its amazing how you managed to pick out the one post where i actually didnt state that. brilliant. read my post next time, it helps.

tooextracool · Nov 3, 2004

Sanz said:
Yeah, enough of your BS too, Please try it with someone who will accept your stupid explanation. Here is another post of yours calling Akhtar as inconsisten and how he can never be relied :-

oh no, akhtar has always been inconsistent so you can never really rely on him

I look forward to hear a new spin from you on the above, I wont be surprised if you define the word 'NEVER' and give a completely new meaning to suit your argument same way you have done after calling Akhtar Rubbish.

ahh yes and clearly the words 'inconsistent' and 'rubbish' are synonyms!!
english is certainly not your language.
its fairly obvious when i said that 5 out of 6 spells in a game hes rubbish that i meant he was inconsistent, so really how your quote proves anything at all i'll never know.

Sanz said:
Shut up,for your own sake, before I expose your contradictory posts more and more (not that people here dont know). You when were debating about how Tendulkar did good against bowlers like Akhtar and Gillespie, you debated for five days convincing that Akhtar was an ordinary bowler who bowls one devastating spell in about 5 Tests and Gillespie is really an ordinary bowler. You will make Chauhan a world class bowler to suit your argument, you will make Akhtar world class when talkin about Dravid but will argue to death to make him Ordinary when talking about Tendulkar.
Unfortunately, for you, these tricks dont work with me.

its amazing, that in every post i wonder whether you have the ability to read plain english or not. ive never ever said that chauhan is world class, this is clearly you trying to misinterpret my words. all i said was that id rate chauhan as good as harbhajan, and if you came to the conclusion that chauhan is world class from that then it shows how much grey matter you really have.
and not once have i said that gillespie is ordinary, id like to see you quote some of these. i wouldnt be surprised though if as per usual you quote something that doesnt even come close to proving me wrong and then try and interpret it as though i said something that i didnt actually do.

tooextracool · Nov 3, 2004

Sanz said:
Thank you, at last you got it that Dravid was very fortunate with at least 4 lives and Akhtar being injured to score that 270. There is no disputing that Dravid has been Brilliant on some occasion, but certianly those occasions aren't too many as you would like to us to believe. Dravid is an extremely talented batsman (which I have never denied) but it took 5 years for him to do justice to his talent, until his 180 against Australia at Calcutta. Before that score Dravid hardly had any decent scores against good attacks.

theres no doubt that dravid has gotten better, and thats largely because hes hit his prime, certainly the most ludicrous claim ive ever heard is that its all because of ganguly whos cant even get himself to play better.
but certainly you cant say that he barely scored against good attacks when he averaged 55 in SA and then 72 in the WI, or when he avg 45 against aus at home

Sanz said:
Here is his series wise avg :- 62.33( in Eng), 40 (home, vs. Aus), 29.16( Home, Vs. SA), 55.40 (in SA), 72(in WI), 25.66(in SL), 76(Home Vs. SL, No Murali for most part), 44.60 (home Vs. Aus no Mcgrath/Gillespie, injured Warnie), 81(in Zim), 107(in NZ), 31.25 (home Vs. Pak), 15.50 (in Aus), 23.50 (Home Vs.SA), 69( in Bd), 432(vs. Zim @home)

yes i know what his averages are like, but what a stupid claim to make, his average ALWAYS came down when played quality opposition....ive already proved that wrong.

Sanz said:
That was before 2000 series vs.Aus in India (180 Calcutta tes). After that yes has been very successful.

so now your argument is that dravid is useless because he failed against quality attacks(despite the fact that ive already prove that wrong anyways), before 2000/01. brilliant that.

Sanz said:
Ofcourse Dravid is far better than Ganguly, technique wise but Ganguly was right up there with him until he became captain proves that despite Dravid being so much better than him in pretty much every aspect of the game (except mental toughness) was that much better really. Look at how Dravid has performed when he has been the captain of Indian side.

if ganguly was so mentally tough then why has his average fallen since hes become captain??why has he failed against every quality bowling attack?

Sanz said:
When Indian team returned from Australia in 1999-2000, Dravid's Career avg was 48.69, Ganguly's career avg. was 48.19. Really great difference .

err ganguly took over the captaincy after the series vs SA, where as ive said he averaged 2 runs lower than dravid. so well done in manipulating the stats to suit yourself.

Sanz said:
If he was dismal,then so was Dravid. He clearly was more successful than Dravid in International Cricket(counting both Odis & Tests) and that went in his favor for the captaincy positionn, Dravid's position wasn't even sure in ODIs.

what is your point here?since then dravid has gone on to improve both his test game and his ODI game and is now one of the best test batsmen in the world. whether or not ganguly is marginally better in ODIs is irrelevant to the initial argument, which is that dravid cant play against quality attacks.

Sanz said:
That is the problem with people like you whose entire analysis is based on averages.

this is really an inane statement, i would expect anyone whos followed my posts, certainly you off all people who has actually seen me argue that someone like tendulkar who averages 58 in tests is overrated(lets not get into that argument now) and seen me say that richards was better than players like gavaskar etc should know better than to accuse me of that.

Sanz said:
Why dont you go and take a look at the ODIs India has because of Ganguly's performance both with the ball

again does this have any relevance to the argument.....

Sanz said:
and bat.

oh yes because ive argued that dravid is a better ODI player have i? seriously i dont know what even provoked this stupid argument, and what made you bring up ODIs because it bares absolutely no relevance to the previous argument.....which is that dravid cant play against quality bowlers. you seem hell bent on showing me that ganguly is the better 'overall' player when that is not even part of my argument.

Sanz said:
Dravid will take an entire century to win those many ODIs. Ganguly despite his poor technique has managed to outclass him in ODIS. Not to forget that he has been batting under extreme presure, given up his spot to Sehwag and had to deal with so much as a captain.

i wonder how long it will take you to realise that you dont need any sort of technique to succeed in ODis?

Sanz said:
What are you talking about, Gillespie was fully fit until the 2nd inning of the Adelaide test. Go and watch him bowl in that test again before claiming that he wasn't fully fit, Gillespie had bowled in previous test series against Zimbawe as well after returning from the injury.

further evidence of how much cricket you follow......
i'll remind you that gillespie was injured(side strain) DURING the first test in the series against zimbabwe, which is why he missed out the next test. he then didnt play a single game before the first test against india at brisbane when he was clearly out of sorts and the fact that he ended up missing the 3rd test shows that he was never fully fit in the first place.

Sanz · Nov 3, 2004

tooextracool said:
ahh yes and clearly the words 'inconsistent' and 'rubbish' are synonyms!!
english is certainly not your language.
its fairly obvious when i said that 5 out of 6 spells in a game hes rubbish that i meant he was inconsistent, so really how your quote proves anything at all i'll never know.

You are confused. Some times you say 'Shoaib can never be taken seriously', sometimes you say 'He is rubbish 5 out of times' some times he clicks once in '5 tests'. (Dont worry I haven't posted that link yet)

So if a bowler who according to you :-

1. Clicks once in about 5 tests
2. Can never be relied because he is inconsistend
3. Rubbish in 5 out of 6 times.

But when you have to prove your point, you will ignore the above statement or gie a new spin to them and try to prove that Akhtar is Brilliant bowler. 8-)

Sanz · Nov 3, 2004

Oh..here is one more thing you, in this thread you are claiming that Headingly was tough to bat on the first day and how tough it was for Dravid to score and blah blah blah, here is what you said on some other thread :-

Quote :- "......headingly 2002- i dont know what makes people believe that headingly is a bowlers paradise.its quite simple about any pitch in england...when the sun shines its as flat as any wicket u'll see...when its overcast the ball seams around . you only have to look at bangars 68 and ganguly's 128 off 167 balls to decide for yourself what the conditions were and besides that the bowling thrown at them was disgraceful-short and wide from caddick and hoggard who never got their line right at all in that innings...........there was movement with the new ball in the 1st session and i clearly remember hoggard and caddick bowling ridiculously short and wide right from the very first over. no the confidence of the bowler hadnt been shattered...they were just completely out of rhythm from ball one."

:laugh:

Another contradiction that proves that how far you actually go to win the argument. Once again you look like a fool here. Now go on a justify the above.

tooextracool said:
its amazing, that in every post i wonder whether you have the ability to read plain english or not. ive never ever said that chauhan is world class, this is clearly you trying to misinterpret my words. all i said was that id rate chauhan as good as harbhajan, and if you came to the conclusion that chauhan is world class from that then it shows how much grey matter you really have.

No you said, you would rate Chauhan Higher than Harbhajan, And If anyone is better than Harbhajan, who is very good, has to be world Class.

and not once have i said that gillespie is ordinary, id like to see you quote some of these. i wouldnt be surprised though if as per usual you quote something that doesnt even come close to proving me wrong and then try and interpret it as though i said something that i didnt actually do.

Here is what you said about both Akhtar and Gillespie:-

"compare it to the 80s when we had holding, marshall,garner,roberts,botham,lillee,thom mo,imran,hadlee etc and that list looks very ordinary indeed. i would in no way classify saqlain,akhtar,and gillespie as great.akhtar is a 1 one devastating spell every 5 test matches type bowler who bowls rubbish when he isnt in rhythm, gillespie is decent but by no means great "

On the same thread you went on to say that compared to the fast bowles in 80s Gillespie looks Ordinary

Ganguly = Legend.. Dont u reckon

Hall of Fame Member

International Coach

Hall of Fame Member

International Coach

Hall of Fame Member

International Coach

Hall of Fame Member

U19 Cricketer

International Coach

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

International Coach

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member

International Coach

International Coach

International Coach

Hall of Fame Member

Hall of Fame Member