Subscribe to the blog feed -

8 sledge(s):

It’s not in house fighting worma, it’s… ahem, let me see… intellectual discussion or intellectual exchange of views rather. :D

I think our quicks certainly bowled a whole lot better then did Agarkar, Zaheer and Pathan combined together. And I also think that given we’d batted our fifty overs, we would have got more then India’s 329, so in that way too, India would have then bowled relatively crappier then us.

It wasn’t really just the runs so to speak, it was more to do with which sides’ bowlers looked more likely to get a wicket, and which sides’ bowlers looked like being spanked out of the ground. And the popular belief (Osman Samiuddin, Nasser Hussain, Imran Khan, and Sanjay Manjeraker too) was that Pakistan was ahead on this count. Nasser actually said that if you take out Harbajjan and Kumble from the India attack it would be on par with a county attack, now I wouldn’t go in and discuss that over here, but that’s just to point out that India do have problems in their bowling. Big ones.

And lastly, I don't like the term 'awarded' the win, I like to think we earned it. Awarded gives the impression as if we got it when we didn't deserve it.

By  Unknown (7 Feb 2006, 1:11:00 am)  

Ok...here's my comment to which Zainub replied above...it had..umm...'mysteriously' vanished earlier ;-)

Zainub, While its good to watch from the line this 'in house' fighting at 24x7 ;-)....I thought I would chip in just one observation...you said " Like bowling crap, and not batting well enough at the death." - well I agree that India did not bat well enough at death, and we should have made more (read my post at sightscreen for more detailed thought) but to say that we 'bowled crap' is a bit misleading. So, if we batted badly and made less.....which means we should have got around 350? And you then say that Pak reached 311/47 because we bowled crap? Doesn't that mean Pak bowled crappier?? Way way crappier? And especially so because they got the early morning condition to use? (remember both captains wanted to bowl first)

Although that does give me some satisfaction that we were better than Pak in one aspect, I would still not accept it. I think we should and could have got more. I also think that Pak bowled better than us in the initial phase (Asif and morning conditions were two reasons) but we did not bowl too bad either. This was just 'this kind of pitch' (or ground, I should say) I was surprised at Aridi not walking in at 3 (Malik did make up for it) because he could have won the match in 40 overs! The ground looked so small, and the outfield so fast, that often Dhoni was getting a boundary for 1/4 of a full effort!

And btw, I personally do think that Pakistan was favourite for winning this, at the point that the match was stopped. Still, it wasn't a certainty. But the weather being what it was, they can't be blamed for being awarded the win.

By  worma (7 Feb 2006, 1:29:00 am)  

Zainub you got it wrong. Actually you're right on the count that had Pakistan batted for 50 overs they may have got 'slightly' ahead of Indian score (had they not committed wicket-o-suicide as they had set out to). But you said India batted poorly...which means India should have got more runs (infact everyone including Woolmer agreed that India messed up in the end, otherwise it was 350+ easily). Which means Pak bowled crappier? (unless you count those gift wickets of tailenders in the end which cost us runs).

Anyway, lets come out of this word-game. Lets look at it this way. I agree that currently Asif is bowling in a different league than most Indian bowlers (I think in this form there's hardly anyone in the world who would bowl better, but then such forms are purple patches, plus no batsmen in the world has 'studied' his style...the real test comes from the second season...not putting down his performance or anything...just a general fact).

But besides Asif, who else? Rana was not even a tiny shade better than any Indian bowler when he was bowling to our batsmen. It was only later that he cleaned up tailender.

And lets ask Hussain how many county bowlers take first over hat-trick even in county matches (and there the conditions are almost *always* helpful). Pathan is a very very good bowler....ofcourse he is more suitable for certain kinds of conditions...and ofcourse people now *know* what to expect from him (this is what I mean by second season, remember how Younis and co use to fall like nine-pins to his bowling, now they've learnt). But hey...even Asif would struggle in certain conditions (I don't think he would have made an inch of a difference in the 400+ partnership in Lahore?)

And lastly, the Pakistani bowling looked a shade better because of the initial use of the conditions. Remember that both captain wanted to use it? And Pak got to use it.

Btw, that we still got to 320+ is a big thing in itself....although given the second innings conditions and Pak batting lineup, it obviously wasn't enough.

But enough of this long rant :-)

By  worma (7 Feb 2006, 1:39:00 am)  

Just one thing, I didn't say India batted badly through out, I just said they batted badly at the death.

And I also don't agree with Nass' county comment, he has the tendency to just stick to his preformed notions about certain Indian bowlers, and he refuses to let go of them, no matter what.

One last thing, I don't think it's only Asif. Yes, he's obviouslt the big difference, but Rana by the looks bowled pretty well towards the end to get his tail end wickets. He was better then Zaheer Khan and Agarkar in my opinion at least.

By  Unknown (7 Feb 2006, 1:57:00 am)  

Yes yes...I did mean 'batted badly in the death'...even then my comment stands...that Pakistani bowlers were worse, as per this logic :)...but I promise I wont bring it up (and anyway I dont believe it is true)

Well, Rana did bowl well to the tail....but remember that was the *tail*...which Indian bowlers never got to bowl to (I think Agarkar and Khan could have bowled a few yorkers to Arshad and Asif, they're not that bad bowlers!). Also, our tail was looking to accelerate at that point of time, they did not have an asking rate (of 6 per over or similar)..they wanted to get as much as possible...maybe 10 per over...sometimes this is a problem for team batting first, they aim for the moon (which looks possible at the moment, going by top order's success) and fail to grab even the earth (ok I got my phrases mixed up...but u get the idea)

By  worma (7 Feb 2006, 2:59:00 am)  

worma: We don't really sync up with each other and say "This is what I'm going to post about. Are you in agreement?" ... and this is true in fact even before Zainub came on board.

zainub: It is not sour grapes by any stretch of imagination. I most certainly don't want _any_ one-dayer to finish this way. Like I mentioned, my argument would have been the same had Pakistan been found to be short of the D/L target when the game was called off. I'm not even claiming that India deserved to win. The scheduling of the games in this season is what I mentioned. I looked up season-wise sunshine for Peshawar and December-March are the worst months. The PCB obviously has to satisfy its various affiliate units, so it awards matches to cities where the weather isn't quite ok for cricket at this time of the year.

I don't quite agree with this "get on with it like Pakistan have" comment. Would the Pakistani batsmen have come off if they were actually behind the runrate? Obviously not. It isn't my case either that they shouldn't have yesterday. They wanted to win, obviously. They were given an opportunity to do so by some tardy slog over batting by India's middle/lower order and some poor bowling for the first 30-35 overs or so.

I do have one observation though. Pakistan has a much superior bowling attack. They let India, who has a much less explosive batting lineup (given that the likes of Dravid and Kaif are in the middle order) get to 328. So Pakistan's bowling 'attack' got collared around too, didn't it? India with a significantly inferior bowling attack ran a much stronger/explosive Pakistani batting lineup _very_ close. I am not convinced that the game was actually "over". The thing is the D/L rules [obviously] cannot factor in a possibility of three wickets falling in quick succession, easily likely when there are tailenders. Doesn't Peshawar have floodlights installed? I thought that was a must on any ground which hosts an international nowadays.

By  Jagadish (7 Feb 2006, 9:45:00 am)  

jagadish: I was kidding! Ofcourse I understand how group blogs work, here and elsewhere :-)

And I agree with your observation. As you would have noticed, I was also trying to point to Zainub about the Indian vs Pakistani bowling.

By  worma (7 Feb 2006, 3:22:00 pm)  

Got the point, worma. You emphasized the fact that Pak got the better bowling conditions. My point was about how Pak's attack was [supposedly] superior and their batting was also more explosive and suited to one-dayers.

By  Jagadish (7 Feb 2006, 3:28:00 pm)  

Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.