flamy Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Pakistan's bowling attack in test against Lanka They are recalling this bowler - who had terrorised batsmen in Quaid-e-hajam trophy ... :haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
Kriterion Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 The real question is does the speed really matter without bowling substance? no... pollock, sidebottom, vaas, asif are all testement to the fact that pace, whilst erotic, isn't everthing.
flamy Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Danish's gone upside down again :two_thumbs_up: :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Mr. Wicket Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 ishant' date=' gul, sohail, as well as wahab riaz, flintoff, damika prasad, chris martin, and a host of others are "regularily" 140 k bowlers, which is like a 3rd tier of pace. but then again the top tier has just tait and the shoaib and lee of old.[/quote'] Rong. Gul barely clocked 140 at all yesterday, and was languishing in the high 120s/low and mid 130s. Same with Sohail. Neither are in that bracket. Who the **** is Wahab Riaz?
flamy Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Rong. Gul barely clocked 140 at all yesterday, and was languishing in the high 120s/low and mid 130s. Same with Sohail. Neither are in that bracket. Who the **** is Wahab Riaz? Wayward Rhesus.
Kohum Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 They are recalling this bowler - who had terrorised batsmen in Quaid-e-hajam trophy ... :haha::haha:
Anakin Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 no... pollock' date=' sidebottom, vaas, asif are all testement to the fact that pace, whilst erotic, isn't everthing.[/quote'] Then why so horny about pace?
Kriterion Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Rong. Gul barely clocked 140 at all yesterday, and was languishing in the high 120s/low and mid 130s. Same with Sohail. Neither are in that bracket. Who the **** is Wahab Riaz? i've also seen dale steyn bowl in the early 130s...whats the point? thats just a spell or two...when i saw them bowling i saw them in the high 130s both of them...and gul for the record has gone past 145 several times in his career...probably a higher percentage of his deliveries than ishant. by contrast, fernando clocked 130.4 early in his spell today...this doesn't mean that he's a 130 k bowler. just like ishant clocking 152 or whatever doesn't mean he's a 150 k bowler.
Kriterion Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Then why so horny about pace? its kinda like big breasts and thick trunk on a girl...ultimately meaningless, but gets every straight guy worked up...
EnterTheVoid Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 Talent with results doesn't equate to much. Suresh Raina learned that the hard way
Mr. Wicket Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 kinda like big breasts and thick trunk on a girl...ultimately meaningless You fail. kthxbai.
Anakin Posted February 22, 2009 Posted February 22, 2009 its kinda like big breasts and thick trunk on a girl...ultimately meaningless' date=' but gets every straight guy worked up...[/quote']Very wrong analogy, try again
Fontaine Posted February 23, 2009 Posted February 23, 2009 I think bounce is a better weapon than pace. On flat decks pace won't do it for you, but if you can get a guy who regularily gets good bounce, even on low pitches then it always troubles the batsmen. That's why guys like Gul/Sohail Khan may seem exciting because they've got pace but they don't generate enough bounce.
Kriterion Posted February 23, 2009 Posted February 23, 2009 Very wrong analogy' date=' try again[/quote'] well why then do ppl get worked up about pace...unless of course your premise is that no one cares about pace...??
Anakin Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 well why then do ppl get worked up about pace...unless of course your premise is that no one cares about pace...??There you go, no one in their right mind would get worked up about pace. Most top order batsmen don't get fooled by extra pace alone.
Don Sharma Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 Pace is important but if the bowler is wayward then it is useless. I dont agree that in flat decks pace is of no use comment. Michael Holding is a great example, he has taken the pitch outta equation on many an occassion, by pitching it full and at pace.
cochise Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 Can we have some entertaining pictures for the Lankan M&M duo too, after the flaying they have been receiving from Younis? This pitch has made donkeys of them all Paki and Lanki.
Don Sharma Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 So has McGrath without much pace. Agreed. But I never said line and length is not that important on flat pitches. I just said that pace can also worry a batsman.
cochise Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 Agreed. But I never said line and length is not that important on flat pitches. I just said that pace can also worry a batsman. You were right though...on a wicket like this, a fuller length at real speed gives you the greatest chance to beat the bat, get late swing or get a bowled...way too slow for back of a length deliveries or short pitch bowling even at pace.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now