Batsmen Whose Average Never Went Below 50.

[AK]

There are only two batsmen whose average never went below 50.

Innings Average Lowest Average
Sutcliffe 84 60.73 60.73
Javed Miandad 189 52.57 51.75

(minimum innings 30)

Javed Miandad average never went below 51; for most of his career he stayed over
55.

Even Bradman and Tendulkar can't claim that.

[C.G.J.]

Bradman scored a century every two innings, no one can claim that.
He is the only person to average over 65 (min 15 tests), 70, 75, 80, 85, 90
and 95.
He nearly doubles the average of greats/legends like Miandad, Waugh, Border,
Richards, Kanhai, Chappel, Lara, Gavaskar,etc (ie he is effectively worth
two of these players combined.

"AK" <A...@News.com> wrote in message
news:v510aug1oa5oja9qe...@4ax.com...

[AK]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:26:27 GMT, "C.G.J." <cja...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>Bradman scored a century every two innings, no one can claim that.
>He is the only person to average over 65 (min 15 tests), 70, 75, 80, 85, 90
>and 95.

That's bullshit. Sutcliffe's average was over way 65 in first 15 Tests. It never
went below 65; in fact, it stayed close to 80 most of the time.

See:
http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerBatGraph.asp?PlayerID=1703

>He nearly doubles the average of greats/legends like Miandad, Waugh, Border,
>Richards, Kanhai, Chappel, Lara, Gavaskar,etc (ie he is effectively worth
>two of these players combined.

How is he worth more than Miandad and Sutcliffe combined, when Sutcliffe (for
most part of his career) averaged over 70 and Miandad over 55?

[C.G.J.]

OK I take your point but as great a player as he is, look at Bradman's graph
it it doesn't dip much at the end. We were comparing career ending averages
b/c Bradman averaged 100+ in his career.
Even if you add 70 of Suttclife to 55 of Miandad you get 125 compared to
Bradman's 100 on his own.
I am not saying the other two are greats b/c they are obviously up there
with the best but it just shows how good Bradman was.

"AK" <A...@News.com> wrote in message

news:2aa0aukcss4860459...@4ax.com...

[Colin Kynoch]

C.G.J. wrote:

> Bradman scored a century every two innings, no one can claim that.
> He is the only person to average over 65 (min 15 tests), 70, 75, 80, 85, 90
> and 95.
> He nearly doubles the average of greats/legends like Miandad, Waugh, Border,
> Richards, Kanhai, Chappel, Lara, Gavaskar,etc (ie he is effectively worth
> two of these players combined.

Yeah but he wasn't as good a bowler in ODI as Saqlain.

AK has the stats to "prove" it

<snip>

Colin Kynoch
BTW Bradman only averaged a century for roughly every third time he
batted not every second time, and in Test cricket he got a century every
2.41 times he went out to bat.

[Colin Kynoch]

AK wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:26:27 GMT, "C.G.J." <cja...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Bradman scored a century every two innings, no one can claim that.
>>He is the only person to average over 65 (min 15 tests), 70, 75, 80, 85, 90
>>and 95.
>>
>
> That's bullshit. Sutcliffe's average was over way 65 in first 15 Tests.

Yes but as he played 54 tests and his average was 60.73 when he finished
he did not average over 65, he in fact averaged under 65.

> It never
> went below 65; in fact, it stayed close to 80 most of the time.

Well as he finished on 60.73 It is safe to assume his average did go
below 65.

At the 15 Test mark Bradman's average was 100.71, so he was pretty
consistant for his career. Unfortunatly he did decline from his 15th
test until he retired as his avarage plummeted by 0.21

Sutcliffe on the other hand dropped markedly from his 15th Tes to his
retirement.

>
> See:
> http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerBatGraph.asp?PlayerID=1703
>
>
>>He nearly doubles the average of greats/legends like Miandad, Waugh, Border,
>>Richards, Kanhai, Chappel, Lara, Gavaskar,etc (ie he is effectively worth
>>two of these players combined.
>>
>
> How is he worth more than Miandad and Sutcliffe combined, when Sutcliffe (for
> most part of his career) averaged over 70 and Miandad over 55

Yes but for their careers they didn't average 70 and 55 now did they?

Colin Kynoch

[Larry de Silva]

"C.G.J." <cja...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:DAWn8.14428$EE4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> OK I take your point but as great a player as he is, look at Bradman's
graph
> it it doesn't dip much at the end. We were comparing career ending
averages
> b/c Bradman averaged 100+ in his career.
> Even if you add 70 of Suttclife to 55 of Miandad you get 125 compared to
> Bradman's 100 on his own.
> I am not saying the other two are greats b/c they are obviously up there
> with the best but it just shows how good Bradman was.

New Sri Lankan test all rounder Tilan Samaraweera has ever had an average
under 50 since playing test cricket.

Larrikin

[Rats]

> Bradman scored a century every two innings, no one can claim that.
> He is the only person to average over 65 (min 15 tests), 70, 75, 80, 85,
90
> and 95.
> He nearly doubles the average of greats/legends like Miandad, Waugh,
Border,
> Richards, Kanhai, Chappel, Lara, Gavaskar,etc (ie he is effectively worth
> two of these players combined.

With all due respect to Bradman's greatness, I think he was just a player
that was a bit ahead of his time. I think if we were to take a good
cricketer from our time into the past, their record would probably be as
good, if not better than Bradman's.

[Jaspreet]

"Rats" <ra...@i4free.REMOVE.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a7qpsq$ndso9$1...@ID-35866.news.dfncis.de...

Why do you say that?
If Bradman was ahead of his time, do you think he would have stayed still in
our time or would he have stayed ahead of our time too?

I guess what I am saying is that genius always remain ahead of their time
whatever it is. I have often wondered what Sir Isaac Newton would have done
in our time and believe that he would have done something equally
pathbreaking.

[Spaceman Spiff]

"Rats" <ra...@i4free.REMOVE.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a7qpsq$ndso9$1...@ID-35866.news.dfncis.de...
>

> With all due respect to Bradman's greatness, I think he was just a player
> that was a bit ahead of his time. I think if we were to take a good
> cricketer from our time into the past, their record would probably be as
> good, if not better than Bradman's.
>

i guess this just a troll, however i have nothing better to do and i will take
the bait.
with all due respect, you are talking nonsense.
none of bradman's peers, were able to keep up with him. are you saying that
every batsman of the 30's and 40's was crap?
good batsmen from today would have to experience the same conditions as bradman-
uncovered pitches, long ship journeys, poor cricketing equipment (by today's
standards), etc.
bradman was a freak. there will never be another one.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Get it right, do it nice
and if you make a mistake, you're going to pay for it twice,
but if you need it, got to have it get yourself
a shotgun and bring it back home

[Ken Higgs]

Colin Kynoch wrote:

> AK wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:26:27 GMT, "C.G.J." <cja...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Bradman scored a century every two innings, no one can claim that.
> >>He is the only person to average over 65 (min 15 tests), 70, 75, 80, 85, 90
> >>and 95.
> >>
> >
> > That's bullshit. Sutcliffe's average was over way 65 in first 15 Tests.
>
> Yes but as he played 54 tests and his average was 60.73 when he finished
> he did not average over 65, he in fact averaged under 65.
>

but if we're talking about the first 15 Tests, his average is over 65.

>
> > It never
> > went below 65; in fact, it stayed close to 80 most of the time.
>
> Well as he finished on 60.73 It is safe to assume his average did go
> below 65.
>

but not in his first 15 Tests

>
> At the 15 Test mark Bradman's average was 100.71, so he was pretty
> consistant for his career. Unfortunatly he did decline from his 15th
> test until he retired as his avarage plummeted by 0.21
>
> Sutcliffe on the other hand dropped markedly from his 15th Tes to his
> retirement.
>

meaning?

>
> >
> > See:
> > http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerBatGraph.asp?PlayerID=1703
> >
> >
> >>He nearly doubles the average of greats/legends like Miandad, Waugh, Border,
> >>Richards, Kanhai, Chappel, Lara, Gavaskar,etc (ie he is effectively worth
> >>two of these players combined.
> >>
> >
> > How is he worth more than Miandad and Sutcliffe combined, when Sutcliffe (for
> > most part of his career) averaged over 70 and Miandad over 55
>
> Yes but for their careers they didn't average 70 and 55 now did they?
>
> Colin Kynoch

but 51 & 60 are 111, which is more than 99, isn't it?

Look, AK is well known for massaging stats. Going down the same path as him doesn't
prove too much really, does it?

Higgsy

[C.G.J.]

What aabout his peers or people who preceeded him like Ponsford, Trumper,
Barnes, Hobbs, etc. all legends of the game and they averaged similar to the
modern greats. Yet Bradman was still way ahead. He also played on uncovered
wickets. You ask any former or modern great batsman and they all say Bradman
is the best be it Sobers, Tendulkar, Lara, Compton, Pollock, Richards, etc..
they all can't believe as they have dominated the game at some time and yet
never to the same extent.

"Rats" <ra...@i4free.REMOVE.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a7qpsq$ndso9$1...@ID-35866.news.dfncis.de...

[Ian Galbraith]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:39:23 +1200, Rats wrote:

[snip]

:With all due respect to Bradman's greatness, I think he was just a player

:that was a bit ahead of his time. I think if we were to take a good
:cricketer from our time into the past, their record would probably be as
:good, if not better than Bradman's.

Given that you have to take into account conditions at the time:
training etc. I very much doubt this. The only comparison one can
reasonably make is with the other players of the time and Bradman towers
over them.

--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631

"Oft 'tis startling to reveal, what the murky depths conceal."
-Steven Brust

[Rats]

> i guess this just a troll, however i have nothing better to do and i will
take
> the bait.
> with all due respect, you are talking nonsense.
> none of bradman's peers, were able to keep up with him. are you saying
that
> every batsman of the 30's and 40's was crap?
> good batsmen from today would have to experience the same conditions as
bradman-
> uncovered pitches, long ship journeys, poor cricketing equipment (by
today's
> standards), etc.
> bradman was a freak. there will never be another one.

Screw you, you wanker! I am not a fucking troll. I am merely stating my
opinion. However, pleasantries and all, you did bring up a very good point
about conditions that modern day batsmen do not face.

[Anindya]

"Rats" <ra...@i4free.REMOVE.co.nz> wrote in message news:<a7qpsq$ndso9$1...@ID-35866.news.dfncis.de>...

very true.....for instance, if we had transported today's man back to
the Neanderthal age, I'm *sure* he would have been far, far ahead of
times...and might have taught a thing or two to the Neanderthal
men...for instance, the ability to drive, talk on the mobile phone,
listen to the car stereo, *and* dodge a cop - *all* at the same time.

Anindya

[samarth harish shah]

LOL!

-Samarth.

>
> Anindya
>

[Spaceman Spiff]

"Rats" <ra...@i4free.REMOVE.co.nz> wrote in message

news:a7rdm0$nmkj6$1...@ID-35866.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Screw you, you wanker! I am not a fucking troll. [snip]
>
yes you are.
you have hairy feet, you stink and you live under a bridge.
ergo, you are a troll.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

I've been hearin' for a long time.
I've been hearin' about some loser band.
Ain't gettin' younger, but I ain't goin' under.
I was promised to rock & roll, this is sad.

[R. Bharat Rao]

"Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:8wno8.18345$8r.1...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> "Rats" <ra...@i4free.REMOVE.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:a7rdm0$nmkj6$1...@ID-35866.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Screw you, you wanker! I am not a fucking troll. [snip]
> >
> yes you are.
> you have hairy feet, you stink and you live under a bridge.
> ergo, you are a troll.
>

Ahhhhhh, but if he is a virgin, then his statement is still eminently true.

Bharat [chiding the Spaceman for missing such an obvious fact]
--
R. Bharat Rao
E-mail: rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com (remove "-nospam-this")
"In the present World Cup let us address ourselves to the Draconian
ingredients to throw up Dutch Courage within the framework of playing
conditions. For example, if the Sri Lankans are hell bent to spite the
West Indians, who are back in the spasmodically, there is nothing in
the rule book to prevent such a disgrace. I am deliberately talking
Double Dutch in order to cast pearls before swine. I will not buy a
pig in a poke."
-- Bishen Singh Bedi in The News (Pakistan newspaper), March 1996

[Rats]

> yes you are.
> you have hairy feet, you stink and you live under a bridge.
> ergo, you are a troll.

You appear to have intimate knowledge of trolls. Perhaps you sleep with
them?

Anyways, you have been kill filed. YAWN. You are a total little bore.

[Spaceman Spiff]

"Rats" <ra...@i4free.REMOVE.co.nz> wrote in message

news:a7tht7$o7k17$1...@ID-35866.news.dfncis.de...

> You appear to have intimate knowledge of trolls. Perhaps you sleep with
> them?
>

actually i saw your parents mating under the bridge.

> Anyways, you have been kill filed. YAWN. You are a total little bore.
>

"waa waa, you called me a bad name. i'll just close my eyes and maybe you'll go
away"
dork.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

Could have been a spoonful of water
Spread out on the desert sand
Just a little spoon fortifies, save you from another man
Man lies about that, man cries about that
Even dies about that, spoonful, spoonful, spoonful

[The Wog]

> > With all due respect to Bradman's greatness, I think he was just a
player
> > that was a bit ahead of his time. I think if we were to take a good
> > cricketer from our time into the past, their record would probably be as
> > good, if not better than Bradman's.

Didn't think there was anyone still spouting this idiocy.

>
> Why do you say that?
> If Bradman was ahead of his time, do you think he would have stayed still
in
> our time or would he have stayed ahead of our time too?

Funny how 999 of the best 1000 genetic specimens for batting of all time
happened to be born since 1980. Funny how only one of them was born around
1900. Amazing coincidence that only Bradman had the luck to be born in an
era where nobody (including Larwood) could bowl.

>
> I guess what I am saying is that genius always remain ahead of their time
> whatever it is. I have often wondered what Sir Isaac Newton would have
done
> in our time and believe that he would have done something equally
> pathbreaking.
>

Maybe averaged 110 in Test cricket. He just had the misfortune to be born
before 1837 and therefore couldn't play Tests.

Wog

[AK]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:01:13 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>AK has the stats to "prove" it

Instead of your pathetic sarcasm, post stats of any bowler of past decade who
has better ODI stats than Saqlan (requirement: minimum 50 wickets).

Can't do it? Just what I thought, asshole.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <44ghau0pi9jb6ir70...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>
Miandad's average in Pakistan is *16* runs higher than his average
outside Pakistan.
Miandad averaged only 45.8 outside Pakistan while his contemporaries like
Gavaskar (52.22), Richards (50.5) and Chappell (52.96) all averaged 50+ outside their
home countries. Proves that Miandad was a home ground bully.
Miandad's average is high against mediocre/bad teams (New Zealand,
India and England) and low against good/excellent teams (Australia, West Indies).

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

The Baboon Buster Bot(tm) v2.1

Born to be Bad.
Resistance is futile.

[AK]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 15:56:30 GMT, The Baboon Buster Bot(tm) v2.0
<miand...@baboonbuster.com> wrote:

>Miandad averaged only 45.8 outside Pakistan while his contemporaries like
>Gavaskar (52.22), Richards (50.5) and Chappell (52.96) all averaged 50+ outside their
>home countries.

Richards averaged 19 in NZ, Gavaskar 40s in NZ, but Miandad averaged 77 in NZ.
Proves that Miandad was a king while others sucked.

>Proves that Miandad was a home ground bully.

Playing in home is as important as playing outside. What matters is winning and
Miandad not only won matches for his team, but he also kept his average better
than Indian baboons like Tendu and Gavaskar.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <ipghau8rdbjt4k0v7...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>
You win the prize for baboon of the millenium. Already!!
More than 998 years to go and the contest's over.

Miandad's average is high against mediocre/bad teams (New Zealand,
India and England) and low against good/excellent teams (Australia, West Indies).

Miandad sucked against West Indies (29.xx) while his contemporaries like
Gavaskar (65.45) and Chappell (56.00) could score runs against them. Proves that
Miandad sucked against good bowling.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <omjhau4rfval13g62...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:

> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>
You win the prize for baboon of the millenium. Already!!
More than 998 years to go and the contest's over.
Miandad's average is high against mediocre/bad teams (New Zealand,
India and England) and low against good/excellent teams (Australia, West Indies).

Miandad had *6* ducks outside Pakistan. He had *0* ducks in Pakistan.
This is because his uncles made sure he scored at least one run.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <brlhau87f3pq8elqq...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>
Miandad was not given out LBW in Pakistan for his first *9* years.
At the same time he was out LBW *15* times outside Pakistan.

You win the prize for baboon of the millenium. Already!!
More than 998 years to go and the contest's over.

Miandad's average in Pakistan is *16* runs higher than his average
outside Pakistan.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <mbnhaucetpubfb9hl...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>
Miandad had only 8 not outs in 108 innings outside Pakistan (7.47%).
He had 13 not outs in only 86 innings in Pakistan (15.11%).
This is because his uncles did not want to give him out.
LOL. Thanks for making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone.

You win the prize for baboon of the millenium. Already!!

More than 998 years to go and the contest's over!

[Colin Kynoch]

AK wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:01:13 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>AK has the stats to "prove" it
>>
>
> Instead of your pathetic sarcasm, post stats of any bowler of past decade who
> has better ODI stats than Saqlan (requirement: minimum 50 wickets).

Both Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee have better Strike Rates than Saqlain
in ODI Cricket.

Akhtar has a SR of 27.45 with 89 Wicktets
Lee has a Sr of 28.98 with 66 Wickets.

Saqlain has the best average in the last decade, but still has
Garner(18.85) 146 Wickets, Pascoe(20.11) 53 Wickets and Roberts(20.36)
87 Wickets ahead of him all-time

Now in Econ rate which is probably the most important in ODI we have the
following who are better than Saqlain in the last decade

Ambrose Econ 3.48 225 Wickets

Marshall Econ 3.54 157 Wickets

De Villiers Econ 3.58 95 Wickets

Kapil Dev Econ 3.72 253 Wickets

Larsen Econ 3.77 113 Wickets

Pollock Econ 3.79 225 Wickets

Mullaly Econ 3.84 63 Wickets

Walsh Econ 3.84 227 Wickets

Akram Econ 3.86 447 Wickets

Murali Econ 3.99 266 Wickets

McGrath Econ 3.93 231 Wickets

Reiffel Econ 3.93 106 Wickets

Matthews (RSA) Econ 3.95 75 Wickets

Maninder Singh Econ 3.96 66 Wickets

De Freitas Econ 3.97 115 Wickets

Harper Econ 3.98 100 Wickets

Now I wont bore you with the list of players who have Econ rates of over
4.00 and less than Saqlain

Saqlain Econ 4.24 264 Wickets

So Saqlain isn't anywhere near the best in the Economy stakes.

The following bowlers have takemn more wicktes than Saqlain

Akram 447 Wickets

Younis 363 Wickets

Kumble 290 Wickets

Srinath 276 Wickets

Warne 268 Wickets

Murali 266 Wickets

Saqlain 264 Wickets

So he hasn't taken the most wickets.

The ONLY category that you can say that Saqlain is better than any other
ODI bowler (who has taken more than 50 wickets) in the last decade is
average. In the others the best he can do is third and in probably the
most important (econ Rate he is so far back in the pack it isn't funny)

> Can't do it? Just what I thought, asshole.

It was too easy

Colin Kynoch

[AK]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:17:27 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>
>
>AK wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:01:13 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AK has the stats to "prove" it
>>>
>>
>> Instead of your pathetic sarcasm, post stats of any bowler of past decade who
>> has better ODI stats than Saqlan (requirement: minimum 50 wickets).
>
>
>Both Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee have better Strike Rates than Saqlain
>in ODI Cricket.
>
>Akhtar has a SR of 27.45 with 89 Wicktets
>Lee has a Sr of 28.98 with 66 Wickets.

In ODI average is far more important than SR. In Tests SR is important but not
in ODI. Even if you look at SR, there is not much difference between the SR.
However, Saqlain's average is far better than Lee's.

>Saqlain has the best average in the last decade, but still has
>Garner(18.85) 146 Wickets, Pascoe(20.11) 53 Wickets and Roberts(20.36)
>87 Wickets ahead of him all-time

None of them are from last decade. Don't make a fool out of yourself.

>Now in Econ rate which is probably the most important in ODI we have the
>following who are better than Saqlain in the last decade
>
>Ambrose Econ 3.48 225 Wickets
>
>Marshall Econ 3.54 157 Wickets
>
>De Villiers Econ 3.58 95 Wickets

<snip>

What good is economy rate if you can't take wickets? Which bowler would you
prefer in ODI:

(1) 10 over 35 runs no wickets (econ of 3.5)
(2) 10 overs 42 runs 3 wickets (econ of 4.2)

Certainly Saqlain is a far better bowler.

>The following bowlers have takemn more wicktes than Saqlain
>
>Akram 447 Wickets
>
>Younis 363 Wickets
>
>Kumble 290 Wickets
>
>Srinath 276 Wickets

Oh, ignorant bastard, you need to calculate matches/wickets and compare that
ratio, not just number of wickets. Kumble has played a lot more games compared
to Saqlain.

Here is a challenge: Find me 2 bowlers whose matches/wickets ration is better
than Saqlain (requirement: 50 wickets).

Saqlain is better than all your aussie baboons.

>It was too easy

You failed miserably.

One again: try to find 2 bowlers in the history of ODI whose matches/wickets
ratio is better than Saqlain, and who has taken at least 50 wickets.

[AK]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:17:27 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>AK wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:01:13 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>AK has the stats to "prove" it
>>>
>>
>> Instead of your pathetic sarcasm, post stats of any bowler of past decade who
>> has better ODI stats than Saqlan (requirement: minimum 50 wickets).
>
>
>Both Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee have better Strike Rates than Saqlain
>in ODI Cricket.
>
>Akhtar has a SR of 27.45 with 89 Wicktets
>Lee has a Sr of 28.98 with 66 Wickets.

In ODI average is far more important than SR. In Tests SR is important but not
in ODI. Even if you look at SR, there is not much difference between the SRs.

However, Saqlain's average is far better than Lee's.

>Saqlain has the best average in the last decade, but still has

>Garner(18.85) 146 Wickets, Pascoe(20.11) 53 Wickets and Roberts(20.36)
>87 Wickets ahead of him all-time

None of them are from last decade.

>Now in Econ rate which is probably the most important in ODI we have the

>following who are better than Saqlain in the last decade
>
>Ambrose Econ 3.48 225 Wickets
>
>Marshall Econ 3.54 157 Wickets
>
>De Villiers Econ 3.58 95 Wickets

<snip>

What good is economy rate if you can't take wickets? Which bowler would you

prefer:

(1) 10 over 35 runs no wickets (econ of 3.5)
(2) 10 overs 42 runs 3 wickets (econ of 4.2)

Certainly Saqlain is a far better bowler.

>The following bowlers have takemn more wicktes than Saqlain

>
>Akram 447 Wickets
>
>Younis 363 Wickets
>
>Kumble 290 Wickets
>
>Srinath 276 Wickets

Oh, ignorant, you need to calculate matches/wickets and compare that ratio, not

just number of wickets. Kumble has played a lot more games compared to Saqlain.

Here is a challenge: Find me 2 bowlers whose matches/wickets ratio is better

than Saqlain (requirement: 50 wickets).

Saqlain is better than all your aussie baboons.

>It was too easy

You failed miserably.

One again: try to find 2 bowlers in the history of ODI whose matches/wickets
ratio is better than Saqlain, and who has taken at least 50 wickets.

Can't do it? Just what I thought, asshole.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <qushau83g51liche9...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad had *6* ducks outside Pakistan. He had *0* ducks in Pakistan.
This is because his uncles made sure he scored at least one run.

You win the prize for baboon of the millenium. Already!!
More than 998 years to go and the contest's over!

Miandad's average in Pakistan is *16* runs higher than his average
outside Pakistan.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <uqthau8apudnvuepg...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad had only 8 not outs in 108 innings outside Pakistan (7.47%).
He had 13 not outs in only 86 innings in Pakistan (15.11%).
This is because his uncles did not want to give him out.

You win the prize for baboon of the millenium. Already!!
More than 998 years to go and the contest's over!

Miandad had 8 100's in Pakistan and only *2* 100's outside Pakistan in his first 7 years.
This is because his uncles were not there to help him.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <vluhau8ev13pof4i5...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

LOL. Thanks for making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone.

Miandad sucked against West Indies (29.79) while his contemporaries like

Gavaskar (65.45) and Chappell (56.00) could score runs against them. Proves that
Miandad sucked against good bowling.

Miandad's average in Pakistan is *16* runs higher than his average
outside Pakistan.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[Balaji A.S. Murthy]

In article <qushau83g51liche9...@4ax.com>, A...@News.com says...

>
>Here is a challenge: Find me 2 bowlers whose matches/wickets ration is better
>than Saqlain (requirement: 50 wickets).

You *are* a profound guy, you pose all the intriguing conundrums and provide
delicately hidden answers.

I didn't know of the "ration" in ODO from. Is it akin to the overs quota?

>Saqlain is better than all your aussie baboons.

Thanks,

- Balaji

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <c31iaukgi6d2n7v5c...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>
Miandad had a low average in in Australia (38.07), while his contemporaries
like Gavaskar (51.11) and Richards (47.57) had good averages there.
Proves that Miandad sucked on fast, bouncy, pitches.

Miandad had only 8 not outs in 108 innings outside Pakistan (7.47%).
He had 13 not outs in only 86 innings in Pakistan (15.11%).
This is because his uncles did not want to give him out.

LOL. Thanks for making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <9g2iausvrh3j35qq5...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad had 8 100's in Pakistan and only *2* 100's outside Pakistan in his first 7 years.
This is because his uncles were not there to help him.

Miandad was not given out LBW in Pakistan for his first *9* years.
At the same time he was out LBW *15* times outside Pakistan.

Miandad's average is high against mediocre/bad teams (New Zealand,
India and England) and low against good/excellent teams (Australia, West Indies).

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <1r3iau0d7q5q9jl2a...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>
Miandad's average in Pakistan when his uncles were not allowed to
give him out LBW: 82.97
Miandad's average in Pakistan when his uncles were given permission to
give him out LBW: 39.19
Any questions?

Miandad was not given out LBW in Pakistan for his first *9* years.
At the same time he was out LBW *15* times outside Pakistan.

Shakoor Rana, Mahboob Shah and Khizar Hayat are Miandad's uncles.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <pjaiaukl7iu12bl6g...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad's average is high against mediocre/bad teams (New Zealand,
India and England) and low against good/excellent teams (Australia, West Indies).

Miandad had a low average in in Australia (38.07), while his contemporaries
like Gavaskar (51.11) and Richards (47.57) had good averages there.
Proves that Miandad sucked on fast, bouncy, pitches.

Miandad was not given out LBW in Pakistan for his first *9* years.
At the same time he was out LBW *15* times outside Pakistan.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <b4biauc6aakvtc7ka...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad sucked against West Indies (29.79) while his contemporaries like
Gavaskar (65.45) and Chappell (56.00) could score runs against them. Proves that
Miandad sucked against good bowling.
Miandad's average in Pakistan is *16* runs higher than his average
outside Pakistan.

Miandad had only 8 not outs in 108 innings outside Pakistan (7.47%).
He had 13 not outs in only 86 innings in Pakistan (15.11%).
This is because his uncles did not want to give him out.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[Colin Kynoch]

AK wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:17:27 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>AK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:01:13 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>AK has the stats to "prove" it
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Instead of your pathetic sarcasm, post stats of any bowler of past decade who
>>>has better ODI stats than Saqlan (requirement: minimum 50 wickets).
>>>
>>
>>Both Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee have better Strike Rates than Saqlain
>>in ODI Cricket.
>>
>>Akhtar has a SR of 27.45 with 89 Wicktets
>>Lee has a Sr of 28.98 with 66 Wickets.
>>
>
> In ODI average is far more important than SR. In Tests SR is important but not
> in ODI. Even if you look at SR, there is not much difference between the SR.
> However, Saqlain's average is far better than Lee's.

Yet you use wickets later in the post as a comparison point.
Incosistant little git aren't you!

>>Saqlain has the best average in the last decade, but still has
>>Garner(18.85) 146 Wickets, Pascoe(20.11) 53 Wickets and Roberts(20.36)
>>87 Wickets ahead of him all-time
>>
>
> None of them are from last decade.

I noted that quite clearly.

> Don't make a fool out of yourself.

I ddin't you are the one who can't read.

>>Now in Econ rate which is probably the most important in ODI we have the
>>following who are better than Saqlain in the last decade
>>
>>Ambrose Econ 3.48 225 Wickets
>>
>>Marshall Econ 3.54 157 Wickets
>>
>>De Villiers Econ 3.58 95 Wickets
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> What good is economy rate if you can't take wickets? Which bowler would you
> prefer in ODI:
>
> (1) 10 over 35 runs no wickets (econ of 3.5)
> (2) 10 overs 42 runs 3 wickets (econ of 4.2)

Generally I would take 1 over 2 in most circumstances. It does depend
on what the other bowlers are doing, but in OD cricket containment is
more important that taking wickets unless you take a lot.

Just for the record Saqlain averages 10 overs 2/42 (which if all other
bowlers were as good would be 50 overs 10/210

And I would take Ambrose at 10 overs 1/35 (which if all bowlers were as
good would be 50 overs 5/175)

I would take Marshall at 10 overs 1/35 (which if all bowlers were as
good would be 50 overs 5/175)

I would take De Villiers at 10 overs 1/36 (which if all bowlers were as
good would be 50 overs 5/180)

Tell me AK which is the better score to chase 5/175 or 10/210?

At the end of the day the number of wickets is irrelevant it is the
number of runs.

You have no additional benefit from dismissing the opposition unless you
do it for less runs than you score.

Unlike Test cricket where you generally have to dismiss the opposition
in OD cricket you can beat the opposition without taking a wicket, even
if you have been all out yourselves. Therefor Econ rate is more
important than other measures for bowlers in OD cricket.

> Certainly Saqlain is a far better bowler.

No Saqlain is a relatively expensive bowler compare to all the bowlers I
have named here with sub 4 Econ rates. Obviosuly the batsmen find him
easier to score off in OD cricket than they do to theses bowlers with
sub 4 Econ rates. You are aware I assume AK that the team with the most
runs generally wins OD matches, not the team with the least wickets.

>>The following bowlers have takemn more wicktes than Saqlain
>>
>>Akram 447 Wickets
>>
>>Younis 363 Wickets
>>
>>Kumble 290 Wickets
>>
>>Srinath 276 Wickets
>>
>
> Oh, ignorant bastard, you need to calculate matches/wickets and compare that
> ratio, not just number of wickets. Kumble has played a lot more games compared
> to Saqlain.

So he has taken more wickets hasn't he?

> Here is a challenge: Find me 2 bowlers whose matches/wickets ration is better
> than Saqlain (requirement: 50 wickets).

Too easy

Brett Lee 1.83 wickets per match (66wickets in 36 matches)
Len Pascoe 1.82 wickets per match (53 wickets in 29 matches)
Saqlain 1.78 wickets per match (264 wickets in 148 matches)

> Saqlain is better than all your aussie baboons.

Funny both those players with better wickets/match ratios are Aussies.

>>It was too easy
>>
>
> You failed miserably.
>
> One again: try to find 2 bowlers in the history of ODI whose matches/wickets
> ratio is better than Saqlain, and who has taken at least 50 wickets.

As I have shown above it was too easy and both bowlers were Australian.

> Can't do it? Just what I thought, asshole.

As I have said too easy.

Your apology goes here

Regards

Colin Kynoch

[AK]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 04:27:30 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>Just for the record Saqlain averages 10 overs 2/42 (which if all other
>bowlers were as good would be 50 overs 10/210
>
>And I would take Ambrose at 10 overs 1/35 (which if all bowlers were as
>good would be 50 overs 5/175)
>
>I would take Marshall at 10 overs 1/35 (which if all bowlers were as
>good would be 50 overs 5/175)
>
>I would take De Villiers at 10 overs 1/36 (which if all bowlers were as
>good would be 50 overs 5/180)
>
>Tell me AK which is the better score to chase 5/175 or 10/210?

None of the above bowler is from last decade, except De Villiers (who sucks with
an average of 27.74 anyway). None of the above bowler is even an Aussie. You
have been humiliated by your own words.

Your own stats show that Saqlain is better than every other modern bowler;
certainly better than Aussie baboons like Warne, McGrath, and Lee( whose
economy rate is worse than shit).

Thanks for making a bastard out of yourself in front of the whole world.

You have shown yourself Saqlain is the best bowler of last decade, and the best
ODI spinner of all times.

Thanks!

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <ttgiauctvkhvm7grq...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

You win the prize for baboon of the millenium. Already!!
More than 998 years to go and the contest's over!

Miandad was not given out LBW in Pakistan for his first *9* years.

At the same time he was out LBW *15* times outside Pakistan.

[AK]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:48:25 -0600, AK <A...@News.com> wrote:

>>And I would take Ambrose at 10 overs 1/35 (which if all bowlers were as
>>good would be 50 overs 5/175)
>>
>>I would take Marshall at 10 overs 1/35 (which if all bowlers were as
>>good would be 50 overs 5/175)
>>
>>I would take De Villiers at 10 overs 1/36 (which if all bowlers were as
>>good would be 50 overs 5/180)
>>
>>Tell me AK which is the better score to chase 5/175 or 10/210?
>
>
>None of the above bowler is from last decade, except De Villiers (who sucks with
>an average of 27.74 anyway). None of the above bowler is even an Aussie. You
>have been humiliated by your own words.
>
>Your own stats show that Saqlain is better than every other modern bowler;
>certainly better than Aussie baboons like Warne, McGrath, and Lee( whose
>economy rate is worse than shit).
>
>Thanks for making a bastard out of yourself in front of the whole world.
>
>You have shown yourself Saqlain is the best bowler of last decade, and the best
>ODI spinner of all times.

Another thing to note here is that 10/210 is a lot better than 5/175. You
certainly are not going to keep the economy rate of 3.5 in last 10 overs if you
are not taking wickets. However, if you are taking wickets, it would be
impossible to increase the run rate in the last 10 overs. This means Saqlain is
even better than Marshal, and certainly better than Aussie baboons like Warne,
McGrath, and Lee.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <k0iiau8hcqq85gaah...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad had *6* ducks outside Pakistan. He had *0* ducks in Pakistan.
This is because his uncles made sure he scored at least one run.

Miandad had 8 100's in Pakistan and only *2* 100's outside Pakistan in his first 7 years.
This is because his uncles were not there to help him.

Miandad sucked against West Indies (29.79) while his contemporaries like
Gavaskar (65.45) and Chappell (56.00) could score runs against them. Proves that
Miandad sucked against good bowling.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[Gafoor]

"Colin Kynoch" <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3CA93428...@iprimus.com.au...
[snip]

I have followed the whole thread here (and it's rather difficult)
because of the relative lack of
snipping.
But Colin, are you arguing against the fact that "Saqlain is one of
the best ODI bowlers of
all time".
If so, what is your case.
Saqlain is an average test bowler, but he really is an awesome ODI
bowler.

It's almost impossible to chose between Garner & Saqlain, but Fanie De
Villiers ?
Fanie, though a very good ODI bowler isn't even in the same league as
those 2.

Actually, even between Garner & Saqlain, I would go for Saqlain.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <50miau8ct22po7cdj...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad sucked against West Indies (29.79) while his contemporaries like
Gavaskar (65.45) and Chappell (56.00) could score runs against them. Proves that
Miandad sucked against good bowling.

Miandad had a low average in in Australia (38.07), while his contemporaries
like Gavaskar (51.11) and Richards (47.57) had good averages there.
Proves that Miandad sucked on fast, bouncy, pitches.

LOL. Thanks for making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone.

[AK]

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <0oniaukuc0vcau8lh...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad's average in Pakistan is *16* runs higher than his average
outside Pakistan.
Miandad sucked against West Indies (29.79) while his contemporaries like
Gavaskar (65.45) and Chappell (56.00) could score runs against them. Proves that
Miandad sucked against good bowling.

Miandad had a low average in in Australia (38.07), while his contemporaries
like Gavaskar (51.11) and Richards (47.57) had good averages there.
Proves that Miandad sucked on fast, bouncy, pitches.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[Colin Kynoch]

Gafoor wrote:

> "Colin Kynoch" <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3CA93428...@iprimus.com.au...
> [snip]
>
> I have followed the whole thread here (and it's rather difficult)
> because of the relative lack of
> snipping.
> But Colin, are you arguing against the fact that "Saqlain is one of
> the best ODI bowlers of
> all time".

No I am arguing againt him as the best.

> If so, what is your case.
> Saqlain is an average test bowler, but he really is an awesome ODI
> bowler.

Sure is but he isn't the Best ODI bowler of all time.

>
> It's almost impossible to chose between Garner & Saqlain, but Fanie De
> Villiers ?

AK asked me to show which bowlers are better than Saqlain, as far as
Econ Fanie and many many others are or were more economical bowlers than
Saqlain, and some by quite a long distance.

> Fanie, though a very good ODI bowler isn't even in the same league as
> those 2.

He was more Economical though, and I would go for Economy anyday over
wickets in OD cricket.

> Actually, even between Garner & Saqlain, I would go for Saqlain.

But AK can't as AK claims that average is the be all and end all in ODI

He has to admit that Garner is the best ever on his criterea.

Colin Kynoch

[AK]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 07:42:15 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>He was more Economical though, and I would go for Economy anyday over
>wickets in OD cricket.

You won't keep your "economy" if you are not taking wickets.

5/175 or 10/210? You are assuming that you would keep the er 3.5 in all 50
overs. That's stupid. If you won't take wickets, er will go up when batsmen
start to slog. 10/210 is much better. This proves Saqlain is a far useful
bowler than Aussie baboons like McGrath, Lee, and Warne. (whose econ rate is not
that great either)

At least you admit that Saqlain is better than McGrath, Warne, and Lee. Yes or
no?

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <h2piaus796hitbpki...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

LOL. Thanks for making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone.

Miandad's average is high against mediocre/bad teams (New Zealand,
India and England) and low against good/excellent teams (Australia, West Indies).

Miandad had 8 100's in Pakistan and only *2* 100's outside Pakistan in his first 7 years.
This is because his uncles were not there to help him.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[Colin Kynoch]

AK wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 07:42:15 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>He was more Economical though, and I would go for Economy anyday over
>>wickets in OD cricket.
>>
>
> You won't keep your "economy" if you are not taking wickets.

So you have never seen or heard of a bowler taking 0/20 off 10 overs?

> 5/175 or 10/210? You are assuming that you would keep the er 3.5 in all 50
> overs. That's stupid.

Yes as that was what the bowlers did over a career, so not stupid at all.

> If you won't take wickets, er will go up when batsmen
> start to slog.

Not always the case. Some bowlers are adept at bowling economically at
the death.

> 10/210 is much better.

Yes I can see how 10/210 will beat 5/175 for the bowling team.

You go on believing that, but I would take 5/175 versus 10/210 from the
Aussies bowling every time.

It would seem that they haven't taught you rudimentary maths in Pakistan.

> This proves Saqlain is a far useful
> bowler than Aussie baboons like McGrath, Lee, and Warne. (whose econ rate is not
> that great either)

McGrath's is better than Saqlain's Warne's is not much different to
Saqlain's and Lee is expensive.

> At least you admit that Saqlain is better than McGrath, Warne, and Lee. Yes or
> no?

No I would take Warne and McGrath over Saqlain in OD cricket.

I would take Saqlain over Lee in OD cricket.

I would take all three before Saqlain in real cricket though.

Colin Kynoch

[Colin Lord]

"AK" <A...@News.com> wrote in message
news:ttgiauctvkhvm7grq...@4ax.com...

>
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 04:27:30 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au>
wrote:
>

> Your own stats show that Saqlain is better than every other modern bowler;
> certainly better than Aussie baboons like Warne, McGrath, and Lee( whose
> economy rate is worse than shit).

for 10 overs.

McGrath: O M R W Ave BBI 4w 5w
SR Econ
Bowling 1344.2 164 5288 231 22.89 5-14 7 4 34.9 3.93

Saqlain O M R W Ave BBI 4w 5w
SR Econ
Bowling 1294.1 58 5488 264 20.78 5-20 10 6 29.4 4.24

For 10 overs

McGrath: 10 overs, 39.3 runs, 1.75 wickets

Saqlain: 10 overs, 42.4 runs, 2.04 wickets

multiplied out to 50 overs thats,

McGrath x 50 overs: 8.75 w for 196.5 runs
Saqlain x 49 overs: 10 w for 207.8 runs

Give Saqlain's strike rate I took one over off as the opposition should be
out in the 49th over. All up I wouldn't say there is anything between them,
though I'd rather be chasing 196.5ish than 208ish.

[Colin Lord]

"AK" <A...@News.com> wrote in message

news:uqthau8apudnvuepg...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:17:27 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au>
wrote:
>
> >AK wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:01:13 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au>
wrote:
> >>
> >>

> >>>AK has the stats to "prove" it
> >>>
> >>
> >> Instead of your pathetic sarcasm, post stats of any bowler of past
decade who
> >> has better ODI stats than Saqlan (requirement: minimum 50 wickets).
> >
> >
> >Both Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee have better Strike Rates than Saqlain
> >in ODI Cricket.
> >
> >Akhtar has a SR of 27.45 with 89 Wicktets
> >Lee has a Sr of 28.98 with 66 Wickets.
>
> In ODI average is far more important than SR. In Tests SR is important but
not
> in ODI.

In tests average is far more important than strike rate due to the fact that
there is plenty of time available in tests.

[AK]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:24:19 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>> 5/175 or 10/210? You are assuming that you would keep the er 3.5 in all 50
>> overs. That's stupid.

>Yes as that was what the bowlers did over a career, so not stupid at all.

Add they bowled most of their overs during first 20 overs, unlike Saqlain who
bowled most of his during last 20 overs.

You have to be utterly stupid to claim that a bowler who averages 28 is better
than the one who averages 20, but we have already seen what kind of fool you are
in other threads.

>No I would take Warne and McGrath over Saqlain in OD cricket.
>
>I would take Saqlain over Lee in OD cricket.
>
>I would take all three before Saqlain in real cricket though.

No surprise here, given you are an aussie thug; however, stats show that Saqlain
is a far superior bowler compared to all these aussies; especially, Warne and
Lee are worse than shit when compared to Saqlain (average of 20; sr 29).

[AK]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:24:19 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>> 5/175 or 10/210? You are assuming that you would keep the er 3.5 in all 50
>> overs. That's stupid.

>Yes as that was what the bowlers did over a career, so not stupid at all.

Add they bowled most of their overs during first 20 overs, unlike Saqlain who

bowled most of his during last 20 overs.

You have to be utterly stupid to claim that a bowler who averages 28 is better
than the one who averages 20, but we have already seen what kind of fool you are
in other threads.

>No I would take Warne and McGrath over Saqlain in OD cricket.
>
>I would take Saqlain over Lee in OD cricket.
>
>I would take all three before Saqlain in real cricket though.

No surprise here, given you are an aussie thug; however, stats show that Saqlain

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <ek2jaug36uemojq5g...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad had only 8 not outs in 108 innings outside Pakistan (7.47%).
He had 13 not outs in only 86 innings in Pakistan (15.11%).
This is because his uncles did not want to give him out.

Miandad's average in Pakistan when his uncles were not allowed to
give him out LBW: 82.97
Miandad's average in Pakistan when his uncles were given permission to
give him out LBW: 39.19
Any questions?

Miandad's average in Pakistan is *16* runs higher than his average
outside Pakistan.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <5j3jau0u45vmkhkhv...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad averaged only 45.8 outside Pakistan while his contemporaries like
Gavaskar (52.22), Richards (50.5) and Chappell (52.96) all averaged 50+ outside their
home countries.

Proves that Miandad was a home ground bully.

Miandad's average in Pakistan with Pakistani umpires: 69.98,
His average in Pakistan with neutral umpires: 35.11.
Proves that his uncles were helping him to get a high average.

Miandad's average is high against mediocre/bad teams (New Zealand,
India and England) and low against good/excellent teams (Australia, West Indies).

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[AK]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:24:19 GMT, Colin Kynoch <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

>I would take all three before Saqlain in real cricket though.

That we would expect from an aussie thug who would choose worse than shit
bowlers (when compared to someone like Saqlain), just because they are aussies.
However, what do stat show?

Mat O R W BB1 BB2 Ave Econ SR 4w 5w
Saqlain: 148 1294.1 5488 264 5/20 5/29 20.78 4.24 29.4 10 6
McGrath: 150 1344.2 5288 231 5/14 5/40 22.89 3.93 34.9 7 4
Warne: 175 1614.3 6865 268 5/33 4/19 25.61 4.25 36.1 12 1
Lee: 36 318.5 1567 66 5/27 4/33 23.74 4.91 28.9 3 1

Clearly Saqlain's average is far superior compared to these baboons. McGrath
econ is a little better, but he bowls most of his overs during first 20 overs;
Lee econ is shit. Saqlain's SR is far better than McGrath and Warne, but not
much difference between Lee's and Saqlain's SR. Saqlain took 5 wickets 6 times,
much better than the other three.

Don't expect an aussie like Colin to admit defeat. LOL.

[AK]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:35:19 GMT, "Colin Lord" <cl...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:

>
>McGrath: O M R W Ave BBI 4w 5w
>SR Econ
>Bowling 1344.2 164 5288 231 22.89 5-14 7 4 34.9 3.93
>
>Saqlain O M R W Ave BBI 4w 5w
>SR Econ
>Bowling 1294.1 58 5488 264 20.78 5-20 10 6 29.4 4.24
>
>For 10 overs
>
>McGrath: 10 overs, 39.3 runs, 1.75 wickets
>
>Saqlain: 10 overs, 42.4 runs, 2.04 wickets
>
>multiplied out to 50 overs thats,
>
>McGrath x 50 overs: 8.75 w for 196.5 runs
>Saqlain x 49 overs: 10 w for 207.8 runs
>
>Give Saqlain's strike rate I took one over off as the opposition should be
>out in the 49th over. All up I wouldn't say there is anything between them,
>though I'd rather be chasing 196.5ish than 208ish.

Your stats ignore the fact that McGrath bowls most of overs during first 20
overs, unlike Saqlain who bowls in last 20 overs. What's McGrath economy of the
overs that he bowled during last 20 overs?

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <ed3jauohl5uhcl6ov...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad was not given out LBW in Pakistan for his first *9* years.
At the same time he was out LBW *15* times outside Pakistan.

Miandad's average in Pakistan is *16* runs higher than his average
outside Pakistan.

Miandad had only 8 not outs in 108 innings outside Pakistan (7.47%).
He had 13 not outs in only 86 innings in Pakistan (15.11%).
This is because his uncles did not want to give him out.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <kq4jaus5ua00pf95k...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad had *6* ducks outside Pakistan. He had *0* ducks in Pakistan.
This is because his uncles made sure he scored at least one run.

LOL. Thanks for making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone.

[Gafoor]

"Colin Kynoch" <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message

news:3CA96226...@iprimus.com.au...

>
>
> Gafoor wrote:
>
> > "Colin Kynoch" <kyn...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3CA93428...@iprimus.com.au...
> > [snip]
> >
> > I have followed the whole thread here (and it's rather difficult)
> > because of the relative lack of
> > snipping.
> > But Colin, are you arguing against the fact that "Saqlain is one
of
> > the best ODI bowlers of
> > all time".
>
>
> No I am arguing againt him as the best.

So would you accept him as #2 ? or what ?
Also say who comes before him.

>
>
> > If so, what is your case.
> > Saqlain is an average test bowler, but he really is an awesome ODI
> > bowler.
>
>
> Sure is but he isn't the Best ODI bowler of all time.
>
> >
> > It's almost impossible to chose between Garner & Saqlain, but
Fanie De
> > Villiers ?
>
>
> AK asked me to show which bowlers are better than Saqlain, as far as
> Econ Fanie and many many others are or were more economical bowlers
than
> Saqlain, and some by quite a long distance.

Yes. But ER isn't the only thing. You are doing exactly the same thing
AK does
in other threads. Take one isolated statistic & touting it to prove
your claim.

If you feel ER is the most Important stat, then Kapil Dev is a far
better
ODI bowler than McGrath, Murali & Akram.

Also give due importance to the fact that Fanie play a lot of matches
before
big ODI scores became the order of the day.

[yeskay]

Gafoor wrote:
>
> Also give due importance to the fact that Fanie play a lot of matches
> before
> big ODI scores became the order of the day.

That's not true. The big ODI scores are a norm only in the
sub-continent. Even now in Eng, Aus, NZ, WI and SA the ODI scores on
an average are not as high as the sharjah/Ind/Pak/SL/SG ones. 300s are
are rare thing outside the sub-continent.

[Ramakrishnan G]

Can you get your bot to post something on Saqlain along with Javed.

The Baboon Buster Bot(tm) v2.1 <miand...@baboonbuster.com> wrote in message news:<Wfgq8.20872$9d3....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...

> In article <5j3jau0u45vmkhkhv...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> > [Baboon excreta deleted]
> >

<snip>

[AK]

On 2 Apr 2002 11:44:58 -0800, gra...@hotmail.com (Ramakrishnan G) wrote:

>Can you get your bot to post something on Saqlain along with Javed.

Why? After Indians are intellectually defeated, you resort to bots?

[Gafoor]

"yeskay" <new_jee...@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3CA9FE...@yahooNOSPAM.com...

250's are passed quite frequently even outside the sub-continent.
300's maybe
not so. Before 95 & so, 225 would be a good score to defend even with
an
average bowling side.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <lt4kauofde6hvf8cs...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

Miandad had *6* ducks outside Pakistan. He had *0* ducks in Pakistan.
This is because his uncles made sure he scored at least one run.

Miandad had 8 100's in Pakistan and only *2* 100's outside Pakistan in his first 7 years.
This is because his uncles were not there to help him.

Miandad had a low average in in Australia (38.07), while his contemporaries
like Gavaskar (51.11) and Richards (47.57) had good averages there.
Proves that Miandad sucked on fast, bouncy, pitches.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

The Baboon Buster Bot(tm) v2.1

Born to be Bad.
Resistance is futile.

[R. Bharat Rao]

"Ramakrishnan G" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a79339f3.0204...@posting.google.com...

> Can you get your bot to post something on Saqlain along with Javed.

Even a blind squirrel finds some nuts occasionally. Saqlain is a super
ODI bowler...

Bharat [though nowhere in Murali, Warne, or even Kumble's class in Tests]

PS: Any "read this and weep" abusive email will be unread.
--
R. Bharat Rao
E-mail: rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com (remove "-nospam-this")
"To play the game is great...
To win the game is greater...
But to love the game is the greatest of all..."
Plaque at the Palestra (Author unknown)

[Gafoor]

"R. Bharat Rao" <rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote in message
news:LGpq8.5656$T_.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...

> "Ramakrishnan G" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a79339f3.0204...@posting.google.com...
> > Can you get your bot to post something on Saqlain along with
Javed.
>
>
> Even a blind squirrel finds some nuts occasionally. Saqlain is a
super
> ODI bowler...
>
> Bharat [though nowhere in Murali, Warne, or even Kumble's class in
Tests]

He performs better than Kumble at a lot of places.
(in tests)

Aus
SM - 14 wkts @ 34.14
AK - 5 wkts @ 90

Eng
SM - 6 wkts @ 25.66
AK - 8 wkts @ 63.00

!!India!!
SM - 24 wkts @ 20.95
AK - 210 wkts @ 21.29

NZ
SM - 11 wkts @ 30.18
AK - 11 wkts @ 40.27

SL
SM - 14 wkts @ 36.57
AK - 22 wkts @ 42.68

[Ken Higgs]

Gafoor wrote:

But that's what Colin does all the time.......

Higgsy

[R. Bharat Rao]

"Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:a8d9jn$rljhg$1...@ID-27262.news.dfncis.de...

> "R. Bharat Rao" <rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote in message

> > Bharat [though nowhere in Murali, Warne, or even Kumble's class in

> Tests]
>
> He performs better than Kumble at a lot of places.
> (in tests)

Well AK has just got through telling us in copious details (or are your
eyes still weeping:-) that home/away doesn't matter. Kumble is a
matchwinner in half the Tests he plays... Saqlain doesn't come close..

>
> Aus
> SM - 14 wkts @ 34.14
> AK - 5 wkts @ 90
>
> Eng
> SM - 6 wkts @ 25.66
> AK - 8 wkts @ 63.00
>
> !!India!!
> SM - 24 wkts @ 20.95
> AK - 210 wkts @ 21.29

Pah.. small sample size. I know who I'd prefer -- the one who took
210 wickets @21 versus the one who took just 24...

Bharat ["read em and weep"]

[Gafoor]

"R. Bharat Rao" <rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote in message

news:irvq8.5684$T_.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...

> "Gafoor" <rro...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:a8d9jn$rljhg$1...@ID-27262.news.dfncis.de...
> > "R. Bharat Rao" <rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote in
message
>
> > > Bharat [though nowhere in Murali, Warne, or even Kumble's class
in
> > Tests]
> >
> > He performs better than Kumble at a lot of places.
> > (in tests)
>
> Well AK has just got through telling us in copious details (or are
your
> eyes still weeping:-) that home/away doesn't matter. Kumble is a
> matchwinner in half the Tests he plays... Saqlain doesn't come
close..

Good one :-)

[AK]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:57:40 -0500, "R. Bharat Rao"
<rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote:

>Well AK has just got through telling us in copious details (or are your
>eyes still weeping:-) that home/away doesn't matter. Kumble is a
>matchwinner in half the Tests he plays... Saqlain doesn't come close.

Saqlain is a match winner. Have you forgotten Saqlain in India in 1999?

Or how about the second Test against England last year? It was the 5th day, and
it for sure looked like a draw, but Saqlain turned out to be the match winner.

[The Baboon Buster Bot v2.1]

In article <aublaucfi7j3qhpfb...@4ax.com> AK <A...@News.com> gibbered:
> [Baboon excreta deleted]
>

LOL. Thanks for making a fool out of yourself in front of everyone.

You win the prize for baboon of the millenium. Already!!
More than 998 years to go and the contest's over!

Miandad was not given out LBW in Pakistan for his first *9* years.
At the same time he was out LBW *15* times outside Pakistan.

Face it. Miandad sucked, sucks and will always suck.

The Baboon Buster Bot(tm) v2.1

Born to be Bad.
Resistance is futile.

[RJ Campbell]

R. Bharat Rao wrote:

> "Ramakrishnan G" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a79339f3.0204...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Can you get your bot to post something on Saqlain along with Javed.
>>
>
>
> Even a blind squirrel finds some nuts occasionally. Saqlain is a super
> ODI bowler...
>

Where are the all importent ODO stats.

<snip>

--
Scores of 250 to 300 or more
will become less and less with
the bouncer back in odo cricket

Arses - 26th January 2002