What do Pak batsmen lack ? Talent or Guts/Temperament

[riya]

and instead of worrying about our talent' date=' how about you find a decent pacer talent who can bowl 140+ consistently and doesn't break down and turn into a spinner like rest of your talunted slow-medium phast pacers! :giggle:[/quote'] U had some great bowlers and talents in 90s.Then what did u achieve? Could u guys ever become top side in that decade.Could u ever won a test series in Aus or SA.NO.

[Guest Gunner]

You guys are yet to produce a bowling talent so you wouldn't know much about it. We have produced talent in both batting and bowling department. Batsmen like Saeed Anwar' date= Majid Khan, Miandad, Hanif Mohd, Zaheer Abaas, Inzy, Yosuf, Umar Akmal all-rounders like Imran Khan, Razzaq and bowlers well do I need to even say anything here? Another lame thread, another failure attempted...move on, now next Paki thread plz. :--D

In that list Majid Khan is the only one I can accept as a very good batsman. Do you want to check the averages of your other heroes outside the Sub-continent? Zaheer Abbas and Miandad, please don't make me laugh. Whe did Umar Akmal become a "great" batting tailunt? He just got here. I have watched most of those guys bat unlike yourself. Imran Khan could never have been picked in a team purely for his batting. End of story. Razzaq - Please don't make me laugh. Other than Imran, the 2 Ws and Saqlain you have not produced any cricketers worth talking about. Other than Imran, 2 Ws, Sarfraz and Akhtar - name an important Pak pace bowler who has taken more than 100 test wickets. Believe me you will have to go back as far as Fazal Mahmood.

[Guest Gunner]

and instead of worrying about our talent' date=' how about you find a decent pacer talent who can bowl 140+ consistently and doesn't break down and turn into a spinner like rest of your talunted slow-medium phast pacers! :giggle:[/quote'] Why does that matter? We still win and you still lose. :haha::haha::haha:

[Pak_Forever]

Why does that matter? We still win and you still lose. :haha::haha::haha:

I think we were talking about individuals and their talent here so yeh that does matter. And there's no point to go on like a broken record that this person didn't do well here, he didn't do well there. All those names I listed (other than Razzaq) are greats of this game so I don't feel like justifying them as there's no point.

[Guest Gunner]

I think we were talking about individuals and their talent here so yeh that does matter. And there's no point to go on like a broken record that this person didn't do well here' date=' he didn't do well there. All those names I listed (other than Razzaq) are greats of this game so I don't feel like justifying them as there's no point.[/quote'] I asked you a question in my previous post. Name a great Pak pace bowler other than those mentioned (excluding Saqlain) who has taken 100 test wickets. :haha:

[Mamu]

Can we keep these "Harvard" educated jokers from meaningful discussions. Jesus Bloody Christ ! Out Talent, Out Talent, Our Talent ??? What has that Bloody Talent Delivered in 25 Years -- Zero -- Zip -- Nada --- "Harvard" has skipped hose those numbers it seems, they started with 1. Talent -- ?? Of those bloody Talents -- only MIandad averages above 50 and outside of Pakistan he averages 45. And let me remind you -- this from a guy who hardly got any LBWs in Pakistan -- and outside of Pakistan was adjudged LBW 20% of the times -- thanks to their Bucknors! Zaheer Abbas ---- the less said the better it is -- averages less than 40 outside of Pakistan and only 2 centuries outside of Pakistan -- and if you discount Engalnd -- he averages 26 -- what a great batsman he must be. And thios idiot has toured all countries atleast twice. I dont know much about Hanif.

[The Outsider]

I asked you a question in my previous post. Name a great Pak pace bowler other than those mentioned (excluding Saqlain) who has taken 100 test wickets. :haha:

Does Mowgli Marshall have 100 yet?

[Dhondy]

Fallacy? Is there any other way of winning a test without taking 20 opposition wickets (discounting the extremely rare cases of declarations)?

Yup, there is. If Pakistan had chased down 400 in the first Test, they would have won after taking only 13 wickets.:--D Seriously, I could argue that every single 300+ 4th innings chase- some would say 250+... was in fact won by batsmen rather than bowlers. The way Sehwag and Tendulkar won it for India in the Mumbai Test v England is a case in example. Philosophically arguing, if Pakistan lose, it's because of their batting, right? Yet, if they win, it's because of their bowlers? What kind of skewed argument is this? In three fourth innings chases in SL and Australia, their batsmen couldn't bring them home. Had they done so, credit would have been apportioned to the bowlers, not batsmen. That's how perceived wisdom works, and that's why MOMs are not the arbiters to decide this debate, because they are subjective.

[Guest Gunner]

Does Mowgli Marshall have 100 yet?

Inshallah you will see. Very soon, very soon. [/ Zombie mode off]

[Dhondy]

and instead of worrying about our talent' date=' how about you find a decent pacer talent who can bowl 140+ consistently and doesn't break down and turn into a spinner like rest of your talunted slow-medium phast pacers! :giggle:[/quote'] Hmmm..who was it who broke down after one Test in Australia recently? Funny, I can't remember his name. 140+ for one Test, then rehab for the next two, hey?

[Pak_Forever]

Can we keep these "Harvard" educated jokers from meaningful discussions. Jesus Bloody Christ ! Out Talent, Out Talent, Our Talent ??? What has that Bloody Talent Delivered in 25 Years -- Zero -- Zip -- Nada --- "Harvard" has skipped hose those numbers it seems, they started with 1.

It's you guys who wanted to know about "Our Talent" :winky: I am just here to correct you guys. A mighty talented team that needed pitches like roads in NZ to win after 30+ years shouldn't really talk much about talent and domination in cricket right? When you guys throw dirt at others then you shouldn't expect anything different. :winky: And you don't have to go to Harvard to figure out who produces more talented players in cricket. India or Pakistan...just ask any cricket (non-Indian) follower...you will get your answer :--D

[YingYangTwins]

What Pakistan players lack are: 1) Good foundation in Domestic circuit. 2) Brains 3) Discipline 4) Common Sense 5) Leadership qualities, Afridi and YK are the only ones in their list of players who are captaincy material. 6) Learn frikking English... even Bangla players speak some broken English... MoYo not wanting to converse in English is just ridiculous.

[YingYangTwins]

Pak Hall of Lame image

:haha:good one!

[The Outsider]

Seriously, I could argue that every single 300+ 4th innings chase- some would say 250+... was in fact won by batsmen rather than bowlers. The way Sehwag and Tendulkar won it for India in the Mumbai Test v England is a case in example.

I would agree with that. 300+ on good pitches and 250+ on turners are won by batsmen rather than bowlers, at least in the context of the end game. But, how many successful 300+ chases have we seen? Maybe 20 out of 2000 test matches?

Philosophically arguing, if Pakistan lose, it's because of their batting, right? Yet, if they win, it's because of their bowlers? What kind of skewed argument is this? In three fourth innings chases in SL and Australia, their batsmen couldn't bring them home. Had they done so, credit would have been apportioned to the bowlers, not batsmen. That's how perceived wisdom works, and that's why MOMs are not the arbiters to decide this debate, because they are subjective.

See, I am not talking about some extreme examples here. If a team is left chasing 150 in the final innings on a reasonable track, the bowlers have done their job. If they lose it's the fault of the batsmen from there. On the other hand, if the bowlers left the batsmen 300-400 to get in the final innings, and they lost it's because of the bowling usually. In such circumstances, even if the batting is able to conjure a draw, that's a fair enough result for them - again these are some generic cases, not counting scenarios where the batting was bundled out for 100 in the first innings. Assuming things were fairly par in the first innings.

[Guest Gunner]

Gentlemen something interesting, http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;innings_number=1;orderby=won;result=1;result=2;result=3;runsmin1=400;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=team All matches where a team has scored more than 400 in Innings one has resulted only in 31 losses and 2 ties in 294 games. All others have resulted in victories. Weight of the runs from batting perhaps? On the other hand, http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;innings_number=1;orderby=won;result=1;result=2;result=3;runsmax1=200;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=team All matches where a team has scored less than 200 in Innings one has resulted in 76 wins in 321 games. All others have resulted in losses. Further teams with traditionally strong bowling line ups like Aus, Eng, Pak And SA have managed to win only between a third to three-fourths of such games as opposed to a 98% win ratio when they scored 400+. India with a weak bowling attack has only lost 3 games out of 21 when they scored more than 400 in I1 and has never lost a game when they scored 450+ in Innings 1. So what do you reckon now?

[Guest Gunner]

It's you guys who wanted to know about "Our Talent" :winky: I am just here to correct you guys. A mighty talented team that needed pitches like roads in NZ to win after 30+ years shouldn't really talk much about talent and domination in cricket right? When you guys throw dirt at others then you shouldn't expect anything different. :winky: And you don't have to go to Harvard to figure out who produces more talented players in cricket. India or Pakistan...just ask any cricket (non-Indian) follower...you will get your answer :--D

I asked you question related to your conveyor belt of tailunt, you are yet to answer me. :winky:

[Mamu]

Sure it helps to have a huge score and time in the match, but taking 20 wickets is the only route to a test win irrespective of the number of 600+ scores you pile up. India itself have not been able to close out many matches despite scoring big and quick because they could not take 20 wickets eg. Sydney '04, Delhi '08, Chennai '08, Oval '07, Calcutta '07, Bangalore '07. Australia, on the other hand would invariably close out similar matches because they had McGrath and Warne. And you are wrong in suggesting that India wins this way. They might do that at home but in all our recent away wins, it's the bowling which has risen to the occasion defending good, but not mammoth scores. In fact, in our away wins only Multan and Rawalpindi come to mind where we worked with mammoth scores.

Rawalpindi was anything but flat, it was a very sporting wicket and you had to be an exceptional talent like Rahul to stand up there and deliver.

[The Outsider]

Rawalpindi was anything but flat' date=' it was a very sporting wicket and you had to be an exceptional talent like Rahul to stand up there and deliver.[/quote'] I never said it was flat.

[punjabi_khota]

Gentlemen something interesting, http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;innings_number=1;orderby=won;result=1;result=2;result=3;runsmin1=450;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=team All matches where a team has scored more than 400 in Innings one has resulted only in 31 losses and 2 ties in 294 games. All others have resulted in victories. Weight of the runs from batting perhaps? On the other hand, http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;innings_number=1;orderby=won;result=1;result=2;result=3;runsmax1=200;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=team All matches where a team has scored less than 200 in Innings one has resulted in 76 wins in 321 games. All others have resulted in losses. Further teams with traditionally strong bowling line ups like Aus, Eng, Pak And SA have managed to win only between a third to three-fourths of such games as opposed to a 98% win ratio when they scored 400+. India with a weak bowling attack has only lost 3 games out of 21 when they scored more than 400 in I1 and has never lost a game when they scored 450+ in Innings 1. So what do you reckon now?

You have not included the drawn matches!!

[Guest Gunner]

You have not included the drawn matches!!

I wanted to use only the games which yielded a definite result to see how the win loss was distributed.