deathmonger Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 still better test average than any indian medium pacer so what? won nothing of importance. i'd rather take a zak or sree or rp who wins us overseas matches and series and world cups and champion's trophies and world t20s and... get the point?
panther Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 so what? won nothing of importance. i'd rather take a zak or sree or rp who wins us overseas matches and series and world cups and champion's trophies and world t20s and... get the point? akhtar has never played in a world t20 india have never won a test series in aus neither have pak akhtar has only played 1 test in england akhtar has never played test in windies india have never won a test series in sa neither have pak but akhtar has performed well in sa averaging 29 in 4 test there only 50 over wc is where akhtar misses out in comparrions with zak and sreesanth.
the don Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 lol @ zaheer khan and sreesanth being mentioned alongside akhtar . indias record in cricket is a proof of the kind of bowlers they produce , been beating them since eternity , have a much better record , infact most countries barring namibia have , so one should study the root cause of the disability to find decent cricketers among the massive population.
Khalpat Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I am loving it: Pakis trying to compare Akhtar with Sachin and Indians trying to compare Akhtar with Sreesanth. And the best part is Akhtar loosing in both debate.
the don Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I am loving it: Pakis trying to compare Akhtar with Sachin and Indians trying to compare Akhtar with Sreesanth. And the best part is Akhtar loosing in both debate. haha sachin is uncomparable , what is it over 300 international losses and counting :giggle:
Khalpat Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 haha sachin is uncomparable ' date=' what is it over 300 international losses and counting :giggle:[/quote'] Yes along with more than 25000 runs , 100 centuries and many more what's your point. Come back when your whole team has combined score more than this batsman.
the don Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Yes along with more than 25000 runs ' date=' 100 centuries and many more what's your point. Come back when your whole team has combined score more than this batsman.[/quote'] naa team victory is more important than selfish stats .:winky:
Khalpat Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 naa team victory is more important than selfish stats .:winky: Pakistan win loss ratio is much better if you exclude matches in which Akhtar played. Which means when Akhtar has played Pakistan has lost more matches on an avergae compared to the matches when Akhtar has not played. Just opposite to Sachin's contribution. India has overall won more matches and win loss ratio is much better when he has played. Selfish kaun
deathmonger Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 naa team victory is more important than selfish stats .:winky: then zak/sreesanth/rp/munaf are better no than asif/waqar/akhtar. champions trophy. world cup. no 1 ranking. wins in england/wi etc.
deathmonger Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 akhtar has never played in a world t20 india have never won a test series in aus neither have pak akhtar has only played 1 test in england akhtar has never played test in windies india have never won a test series in sa neither have pak but akhtar has performed well in sa averaging 29 in 4 test there only 50 over wc is where akhtar misses out in comparrions with zak and sreesanth. so how is he a great player if he has not won anywhere or played anywhere. he's just like kambli. promise but no performance. also what about indies. we have won three series there while pak haven't won this time too. also akhtar never won in india. pathan/balaji did in pakistan.
deathmonger Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 haha sachin is uncomparable ' date=' what is it over 300 international losses and counting :giggle:[/quote'] also no 1 ranking, world cup, champions trophy, wins in england,sri lanka,pakistan,new zealand,west indies.
deathmonger Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 lol @ zaheer khan and sreesanth being mentioned alongside akhtar . indias record in cricket is a proof of the kind of bowlers they produce , been beating them since eternity , have a much better record , infact most countries barring namibia have , so one should study the root cause of the disability to find decent cricketers among the massive population. bowlers taht win world cup, champions trophy, no 1 ranking. no matter how good avg of asif,akhtar are they never won anything. zak/rp/sree>>>>>>>>>>>>>>amir/asif/akhtar/any post WW phaaaaaast bowler.
deathmonger Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 naa team victory is more important than selfish stats .:winky: but you have neither - neither victory nor stats. no wonder pak is bottom of table in all formats.
panther Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Pakistan win loss ratio is much better if you exclude matches in which Akhtar played. Which means when Akhtar has played Pakistan has lost more matches on an avergae compared to the matches when Akhtar has not played. Just opposite to Sachin's contribution. India has overall won more matches and win loss ratio is much better when he has played. Selfish kaun 20 out of 46 test akhtar play in pak wins =43.4% 63 out of 188 test srt play in India wins=33.5%
panther Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 so how is he a great player if he has not won anywhere or played anywhere. he's just like kambli. promise but no performance. also what about indies. we have won three series there while pak haven't won this time too. also akhtar never won in india. pathan/balaji did in pakistan. comparison between akhtar ,zak, sree and rp shows that akhtar is better as if sree won you a wc bowled crap yes zak did win you a wc rp won a t20 wc but akhtar has never played in 1
panther Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 rameez raja has a wc so rameez is better than ganguly by your logic
deathmonger Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 rameez raja has a wc so rameez is better than ganguly by your logic no i'm saying akhtar is useless. ganguly has won champions trophy plus away series in england and pakistan to go along with his good stats. akhtar is someone like kambli, good avg but never really won anything. akhtar has nothing.
deathmonger Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 comparison between akhtar ,zak, sree and rp shows that akhtar is better as if sree won you a wc bowled crap yes zak did win you a wc rp won a t20 wc but akhtar has never played in 1 zak and rp won us series in england. zak also won us a champions trophy. sree won us series in west indies. these three also took us to no 1.
Alchemist Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 haha sachin is uncomparable ' date=' what is it over 300 international losses and counting :giggle:[/quote'] Of all the beating you get at WC (The games that matter the most). SRT has 3 MOMs.....How many does any pakistan player have ?????........ZILCH
Pak_Forever Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 no i'm saying akhtar is useless. ganguly has won champions trophy plus away series in england and pakistan to go along with his good stats. akhtar is someone like kambli, good avg but never really won anything. akhtar has nothing. :hysterical::hysterical:..............sure
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