Ind/SL Update 2T3D at 17:15 Hrs(IST)
Phil Shead
>
>In article <1993Jul29.1...@schbbs.mot.com>, TUK...@maccvm.corp.mot.com (David Wheeler) writes:
>I wouldn't say that he is the best, conidering the fact that people like
>Kapil and Akram are around. But he certainly is a very underestimated player.
From where I sit Akram cannot be classified as an all-rounder. All-rounders
do not average 20 with the bat. When was Akram's last reasonable effort
with the bat. His hundred against Australia.?
David Wheeler
>In article <1993Jul29.1...@doug.cae.wisc.edu> bala...@cae.wisc.edu (Ba
>>Kapil and Akram are around. But he certainly is a very underestimated player.
>
>From where I sit Akram cannot be classified as an all-rounder. All-rounders
>do not average 20 with the bat. When was Akram's last reasonable effort
>with the bat. His hundred against Australia.?
My point exactly. Wasim does well batting in county cricket, but this side of
his game doesn't quite cut it at Test level. Perhaps he should start opening,
like Prabhakar did! And Kapil is not the bowling force he once was. So I
stand by my original assertion: for my money, Prabhakar is the best all-round
player in Test cricket *at the moment*.
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wheeler, Motorola Ltd., Camberley, Surrey, England
TUK...@maccvm.corp.mot.com
Vaibhav A. Diwadkar
writes:
> From where I sit Akram cannot be classified as an all-rounder.
All-rounders
>do not average 20 with the bat. When was Akram's last reasonable effort
>with the bat. His hundred against Australia.?
>
Nopesy. That was way back in '90 and probably marked the
beginning of Akram's discovery of his batting talents. I suspect
since that point in time Akram has been averaging 27ish or
more with the bat (dunno where the 27 figure popped into my
head). He batted responsibly to secure close wins in tests
against SL and England. He bowled poorly (from accounts) in
the recent series with the Windies and did not bat well
either, but that apart he has been a legit allrounder
since '90 (remember the WCup finals; 3 superb wkts and a
crackling 30 odd with the bat).
Career figures sometimes conceal consistency during the recent
past. Craig McDermott's bowling average is ~28 (hardly
superlative) but his avg. over the past 3 years is probably
more like 22-23 which is rather good don't you think?
I don't think Akram can open the innings like Prabhakar can
or that his career batting stats will look like Kapil/Imran/
Botham but he is an allrounder and easily one of the most
dangerous players around.
- Regards, - Vaibhav.
Vaibhav A. Diwadkar
> From where I sit Akram cannot be classified as an all-rounder.
All-rounders
>do not average 20 with the bat. When was Akram's last reasonable effort
>with the bat. His hundred against Australia.?
>
Nopesy. That was way back in '90 and probably marked the
Chris Stride
I think he's a better batsman when it comes to 1-day matches. It seems to suit
his attacking style more.
I think this actually may apply to many of the Pakistani batting line-up. I am
constantly amazed at how irresponsibly many of them play when the team is in
strife during a match - they seem to want to "go for it" no matter what.
This may have lead to their downfall in the last W.S.C (when Aussie and the
Windies easily beat them to the final).
I know it certainly helped us to beat them in our recent one-day series with them.
Chris
--
Sadiq Yusuf
Subject: Akram as allrounder (was Re: Ind/SL Update 2T3D at 17:15 Hrs(IST))
In article <246pq0$k...@sol.deakin.OZ.AU> Phil Shead, dri...@deakin.OZ.AU
writes:
>> From where I sit Akram cannot be classified as an all-rounder.
All-rounders
>>do not average 20 with the bat. When was Akram's last reasonable effort
>>with the bat. His hundred against Australia.?
>>
Huh. Phil actually vocalized something I've felt for a long time
now, but havent gotten round to saying out aloud on rsc (which, of course,
is the receptacle of all my random thoughts :-) ) As Phil says, he's
averaged about 20 with the bat over his career. Now, Malcolm Marshall,
IMHO, was a superior bowler and _he_ averaged something like 19 point
something with the bat (Cricinfo is down as I speak, so I cannot reveal the
exact decimal point, but I did check it a few days ago :-)) - and Marshall
was never listed among the Botham/Hadlee/Imran/Kapil (in alphabetical order
:-) quartet of all rounders in the 80's. I've felt for a while that it
might only be the paucity of great allrounders at the moment which makes us
think of Akram as one of that breed. Anyway.
> Nopesy. That was way back in '90 and probably marked the
> beginning of Akram's discovery of his batting talents. I suspect
> since that point in time Akram has been averaging 27ish or
> more with the bat (dunno where the 27 figure popped into my
> head). He batted responsibly to secure close wins in tests
> against SL and England.
Yup, I agree that he batted responsibly in those 2 innings, but,
after all, they _are_ only 2 innings. Akram has occasionally produced a
decent inning (as did Marshall, in the 80s), but that hardly, IMHO, confers
on him the "all-rounder" tag.
Also, the 27 figure didnt sound quite right to me, so I went back
and checked it (no, I dont have a life :-)). You do mention that '90 was
"probably the beginning of Akram's discovery of his batting talents", so
thats when I went back to (also because I only have records dating back
to late '90 :-) ).
In late 1990 (first test October 10-15), Pakistan hosted NZ. In
that series, Akram had 28 in his only inning at Karachi, 1 in his only
inning at Lahore, and did not play the final test at Faisalabad.
Total: 29 runs in 2 innings, no not outs.
Immediately after, Pakistan hosted the WI (first test Nov 15-20).
In that series, Akram had 9 in his only inning at Karachi, 4 and 0 at
Faisalabad, and 38 and 21 not out at Lahore.
Total: 72 runs in 5 innings with 1 not out.
It seems, from the records I have, that Pakistan didnt play a test
for a while after that - I guess the plan was for the tour of India which,
of course, was unfortunately aborted.
In late 1991, Pakistan hosted Sri Lanka (first test Dec 12-17). In
that series Akram had 20 not out in his only inning at Sialkot, the 2nd
test was rain affected (he didnt bat), and 13 and 54 in the final test at
Faisalabad (the responsible inning you mentioned earlier ).
Total: 87 runs in 3 innings with 1 not out.
After the WC, Pakistan visited England. In that series Akram missed
the first test, had 24 and 45 not out at Lords (also mentioned earlier), 0
and 13 at Old Trafford, 12 and 19 at Leeds, and 7 in his only inning at the
Oval.
Total: 118 runs in 7 innings with 1 not out.
In late 1992 (December sometime), Pakistan played a one-off test vs
NZ in NZ. In that test Akram had 27 and 15 in his 2 innings.
Total: 42 runs in 2 innings with 0 not outs.
In early 1993, Pakistan visited WI. In that series Akram had 2 and
4 at Trinidad, 29 and 0 at Barbados, and 9 in his only inning at Antigua.
Total: 44 runs in 5 innings with no not outs.
Grand Total: 392 runs in 24 innings, with 3 not outs.
Average (by my, admittedly cheap, calculator :-)) : 18.6667
So, as you can see, Akram has averaged only 18.67 with the bat,
with only 1 test 50 in the period from late 1990 to now latish 1993.
Clearly, a far from sterling effort with the bat - one that, IMHO, does not
qualify him for all-rounder status. I suspect, for example, that we could
work backwards and come up with a similar average for Merv Hughes, and one
doesnt see too many netters promoting him as "The Grrrrrreatest Allrounder in
the Woooorrrlllldddd !!!" (as they'd say in the WWF) :-) :-).
> He bowled poorly (from accounts) in
> the recent series with the Windies and did not bat well
> either, but that apart he has been a legit allrounder
> since '90 (remember the WCup finals; 3 superb wkts and a
> crackling 30 odd with the bat).
>
Yes, he did bowl poorly in WI and, as you can see, scored only 44
in 5 innings (ie batted poorly too).But, even disregarding the WI series,
Akram has only averaged 21.75 with the bat - still not the batting average
of an allrounder.
He did have a very good WC final, but the point is that you cannot
really judge someone on one game. Akram, again, _has_ occasionally produced
with the bat - its just that it hasnt been very often (at least not often
enough to be viewed as an all-rounder, IMHO).
Was it Chris who said he's a much better bat in ODI's ? Its true
that his batting style is much more suited to ODIs, and he's a very useful
bat in the last few (ie slog) overs. A terrific striker of the ball who can
hit up a vital 20-30 runs in next to no time at the end of an odi inning.
But his ODI batting average at last count (ie. before the WI series) was
about 13 and he's never scored a 50 in an ODI. Again, not a tremendous
batting record by any standards.
> Career figures sometimes conceal consistency during the recent
> past. Craig McDermott's bowling average is ~28 (hardly
> superlative) but his avg. over the past 3 years is probably
> more like 22-23 which is rather good don't you think?
>
Agree completely. Ive always felt that McD was very underrated,
actually, because of his career stats. He has like 198 wickets now, but
he's gotten over a hundred since his comeback. In fact, his 100th test
wicket since his comeback came in his 19th comeback test - a Waqaresque
stat, that !
> I don't think Akram can open the innings like Prabhakar can
> or that his career batting stats will look like Kapil/Imran/
> Botham but he is an allrounder and easily one of the most
> dangerous players around.
>
>
No, I dont think Akram can open the inning :-). I doubt very much
if his career batting stats will look like the top all rounders - his
performances would really have to improve by leaps and bounds for that to
happen. After the amount of cricket he's played, raising the average to 30
or so (Kapil`s is a little over 30) will take an enormous effort and a more
than a few extraordinary performances.
In conclusion, I must say that Iam pretty surprised (not to say
shocked) by these figures. I, too, had the impression that his performances
had been markedly better over the last couple of seasons - while I didnt
think his average was near 27 over that period, I very definately did not
expect it to be under 19 !! I've always thought Akram had a fair bit of
batting talent - good attacking shots, tremendous ability to hit the ball,
and an existant (if not always visible :-) defense. An average of under 20
does absolutely no justice to his ability - its really almost disgraceful.
Iam uncertain of the reason - I think a lack of patience and a desire to
attack at all costs (its amazing the number of times he gets out for very
low scores going after spinners - be it Dipak Patel or Carl Hooper) might
well be the cause. But whatever the cause - batting is more than just the
ability to hit shots. Temperament and the choice of the ball to be hit is
just as important. And Akrams performances with the bat do not give proof
of his all-round ability - in fact,IMHO, they prove quite the reverse.
> - Regards, - Vaibhav.
>
Thanks for a v interesting post, Vaibhav, it made me go back and
check all the old stats :-) And a fair bit of fun it was, too :-)
Sadiq [ so Iam obsessive.You got a problem with that ? :-)] Yusuf
Spaceman Spiff
Yusuf) says:
>
> Was it Chris who said he's a much better bat in ODI's ? Its true
>that his batting style is much more suited to ODIs, and he's a very useful
>bat in the last few (ie slog) overs. A terrific striker of the ball who can
>hit up a vital 20-30 runs in next to no time at the end of an odi inning.
>But his ODI batting average at last count (ie. before the WI series) was
>about 13 and he's never scored a 50 in an ODI. Again, not a tremendous
>batting record by any standards.
>
ago. perhaps one of our resident pakistanis can confirm that.
Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabian wind
The needle's eye is thin
The ships of state sail on mirage
and drown in sand
Out in no-man's land
Where Allah does command.
tan...@biomed.med.yale.edu
I have seen the vedio of him hitting one of the most extraordinary and
explosive 50 (i think he got 86 odd) against australia in a one-day in1989.With
Pakistan having lost most of their top order for next to nothing,
he took to the attack to the australian camp and hit something like
5 sixes in that knock.Carl Rackemann was really steaming in and at
one time had figures of 4-4-0-2,but then Akram hit him all over the place.
I think this was the first final of B & H WSC in 1989.
--Pushkar
Vaibhav A. Diwadkar
si...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
[much of Sadiq's painstaking research deleted rather callously :-)... ]
> So, as you can see, Akram has averaged only 18.67 with the bat,
>with only 1 test 50 in the period from late 1990 to now latish 1993.
>Clearly, a far from sterling effort with the bat - one that, IMHO, does
not
>qualify him for all-rounder status. I suspect, for example, that we could
>work backwards and come up with a similar average for Merv Hughes, and
one
>doesnt see too many netters promoting him as "The Grrrrrreatest
Allrounder in
>the Woooorrrlllldddd !!!" (as they'd say in the WWF) :-) :-).
- Not yet atleast but wait ........
Sadiq in his article demonstrated the travails of extrapolating
from opinions (in this case my opinions) to facts (in this case
Akram's performances as a batsman). Having watched only
four Akram batting performances (vs. Australia @ Adelaide '90,
he scored 50+ and 123 in that match; the WCup finals, he
scored a savage 30 odd in 18 balls; vs. Eng @ Lords '92, he
scored 45* in the 4th innings) and additionally having
fixated on his other match winning batting performance
(his 50 odd against Lanka in '91) I obviously seem to have
overestimated Akram's worth as a batsman even in the
recent past (over which I claimed he was a "legit allrounder").
A rather clear example of the "availability heuristic" at
work.
As a consequence of Sadiq's reference to Merv I thought it might be
useful to engage in yet another exercise in disabuse. Again the
opinions are mine (in this case "Merv Hughes is nowhere near
Akram as a consistent test batsman or allrounder") and the
facts (Hughes' record) have been gleaned from CricInfo.
On the face of it, I would probably have guessed Hughes'
batting average over the last 10-15 tests at around 13-14
runs an innings. He bats @ #8 and is a pretty pesky
performer but the numbers associated with him which come
out of CricInfo are about as surprising as those associated
with Akram.
Here are Merv's performances with bat and ball
going back over the last 13 tests beginning with the first
test against the Windies in late '92.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
----- WIndies in Australia '92-'93 -----
First Test, Australia v West Indies
Played at the Gabba 27,28,29,30,31 November
Hughes c Bishop b Hooper 10
Hughes c Williams b Ambrose 1
Hughes 18.3 3 58 2
Hughes 13 4 28 1
Second Test, Australia v West Indies
Played at the MCG 26,27,28,29,30 December
Hughes not out 9
Hughes c Williams b Ambrose 15
Hughes 19 5 51 3
Hughes 18 7 41 1
Third Test, Australia v West Indies
Played at the SCG 2,3,4,5,6 January
Hughes c Haynes b Bishop 17
Hughes 16.4 1 76 3
Fourth Test, Australia v West Indies
Played at the Adelaide Oval 23,24,25,26 January
Hughes 21.3 3 64 5
Hughes 13 1 43 1
Hughes c Murray b Hooper 43
Hughes lbw b Ambrose 1
Fifth Test, Australia v West Indies
Played at the WACA 30,31 January 1 February
Hughes c Arthurton b Ambrose 0
Hughes c Murray b Walsh 22
Hughes 25.4 6 71 4
Averages from the above 5 tests ...
M I NO Runs Hs Avg
5 9 1 118 43 14.75
O M Runs 5w W BB Avg.
145.2 30 432 1 20 5-64 21.60
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
----- Australia in NZ '93 -----
Australia v New Zealand
Played at Eden Park, Auckland 11,12,13,14,15 March
Hughes c Morrison b Patel 33
Hughes not out 31
Hughes 24.5 6 67 3
Hughes 15.4 2 54 1
Australia v New Zealand
Played at Lancaster Park, Christchurch 25,26,27,28,29 February
Hughes c Cairns b Patel 45
Hughes 21 10 44 2
Hughes 24.5 6 62 4
Australia v New Zealand
Played at the Basin Reserve, Wellington 4,5,6,7,8 March
Hughes 35 9 100 3
Hughes 11 5 22 -
Hughes c Wright b Morrison 8
Averages from the above 3 tests ...
M I NO Runs Hs Avg
3 4 1 117 45 39.00
O M R W 5w BB Avg
121.2 38 349 13 4-62 26.85
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
----- Australia in England '93 -----
Avgs., end of Test 5
M I NO Runs Hs Avg
5 3 57 38 19.00
O M Runs W 5w BB Avg.
235.0 62 614 25 1 5-92 24.56
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Unfortunately I don't have his batting numbers against
India in '91-'92 (from memory he ended up averaging
around 20, but then my memory has crucially failed at least
once on this thread :-), I think and played several exasperating
innings from India's point of view).
Here are a composite of his batting numbers (over his
last 13 tests) and his bowling numbers (over his last
18 tests, including the series against India in '91).
M I NO Runs Hs Avg
13 16 2 292 45 20.86
O M Runs W 5w BB Avg.
701.1 176 1915 80 2 5-64 23.94
Interestingly enough, the sum of these numbers have
been compiled over much of the same opposition as Akram's
(WI, NZ & Eng.). Merv's batting numbers are also
relatively "uncontaminated" by not outs.
The numbers suggest that the distinction between Merv
and Akram as allround performers (over the last year
and a half) may merely be a consequence of assumption
rather than sensitivity to facts.
Merv has been more proficient with the bat (at least
in terms of his average) and has hardly been unsuccessful with
the ball.
I'm not quite sure what to make of all this. Maybe as Sadiq
says, the metric by which allrounders are being judged is
being scaled downward (maybe Mushtaq Ahmed is an
allrounder for the future?) as a consequence of the eclipse of
the 80s quartet.
As for how Merv scales into Akram as an allrounder, maybe
I should just conclude with the "lies, damn lies and statistics"
cliche.
Regards, - Vaibhav.
D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar
>In article <24uple$g...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, si...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Sadiq
>Yusuf) says:
>>But his ODI batting average at last count (ie. before the WI series) was
>>about 13 and he's never scored a 50 in an ODI. Again, not a tremendous
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>batting record by any standards.
>i'm pretty sure he scored an 86 in the WSC triangular tournament a few years
>ago. perhaps one of our resident pakistanis can confirm that.
>Stay cool,
>Spaceman Spiff
As the official resident Pakistani, I hereby confirm that
Wasim Akram did score an 86 on a rain-affected pitch in WSC finals.
His score accounted for about 50% of the target paksitan set for
Aussies.
Sadiq's claim would have supported his contention, if it were
true. :) However, even if it were true, one has to realize that Akram
is used to slog, and it is not often a slogger scores a fifty when
Pakistani top order leaves the score at 100 after 40 overs.
In test cricket, Akram's batting talent may very well be equal
to that of Imran, even if his application lags a shade behind. When
Pakistan plays WI and likes in a test match, Akram usually comes in at
100 for 5(or6), and when pak playes India he usally comes in at 400
for 5(or6). Both cases do not quite let a lower order batsman develop
naturally. The slump puts too much pressure, and the high score
demands a few quick runs. If you look at Imran's batting when he came
in at number 8 or so, his average was around 20 as well. If I were to
start judging batsmen from averages, I would not do justice to Asif
Iqbal and likes.
Salman [there are lies, damn lies, and cricket statistics] Azhar
--
"With mathematics and physics, we insisted on perceiving the world to
be rational. So, miracles have ceased to happen. Now, vanishing is the
love and compassion which distinguishes us from the other beasts that
trod the face of this planet." -D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar
Sadiq Yusuf
>In article <93231.081...@psuvm.psu.edu> SXK...@psuvm.psu.edu (Spaceman Spiff) writes:
>>In article <24uple$g...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, si...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Sadiq
>>Yusuf) says:
>>>But his ODI batting average at last count (ie. before the WI series) was
>>>about 13 and he's never scored a 50 in an ODI. Again, not a tremendous
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>batting record by any standards.
>
>>i'm pretty sure he scored an 86 in the WSC triangular tournament a few years
>>ago. perhaps one of our resident pakistanis can confirm that.
>>Stay cool,
>>Spaceman Spiff
>
>
> As the official resident Pakistani, I hereby confirm that
>Wasim Akram did score an 86 on a rain-affected pitch in WSC finals.
>His score accounted for about 50% of the target paksitan set for
>Aussies.
>
> Sadiq's claim would have supported his contention, if it were
>true. :) However, even if it were true, one has to realize that Akram
>is used to slog, and it is not often a slogger scores a fifty when
>Pakistani top order leaves the score at 100 after 40 overs.
>
Soooorrrry !! :-) :-) I have erred :-( . As I said, ci was down
when I posted the ODI results, and I couldnt confirm them. I checked it
when it came back up, but Akrams ODI stats arent there !! I dont know where
I got his ODI batting stats from, I think it probably was from a tape of
some game where they flashed it when he came in. I do remember the 86 vs oz
- with Mujtaba, was it ?? I've even seen highlights of it, v good inn it
was too :-) . I think, tho, that Akram has 1 ODI 50 (dont hold me to it
:-), but I do remember an average of 13 ish, and a career strikerate of 92
or so (which, of course, is hot stuff). But I say, Salman, forged stats ?
Not forged, I assure you, unless the last 2 annual issues of "Indian Cricket"
and one issue of "The Cricketer" (the only one I have :-( ) which has the
scorecards of the Pak-WI series happened to forge em too :-). In which case
there wouldnt be a problem, cos I'd be in v good company :-)
I do agree with you, BTW, that Akram is a pretty decent ODI bat - a
far better ODI bat IMHO than a test bat. Again, a career strike rate of
92ish is pretty much hot stuff, tho the 13 ish avg is a little too low
(Kapil, for example, averages 25 in ODIs with a career strike rate of 95
ish). And yes, I do agree that it isnt easy to get 50s coming in late. He
probably has tons of 30s and 40s.
> In test cricket, Akram's batting talent may very well be equal
>to that of Imran, even if his application lags a shade behind. When
>Pakistan plays WI and likes in a test match, Akram usually comes in at
>100 for 5(or6), and when pak playes India he usally comes in at 400
>for 5(or6). Both cases do not quite let a lower order batsman develop
>naturally. The slump puts too much pressure, and the high score
>demands a few quick runs. If you look at Imran's batting when he came
>in at number 8 or so, his average was around 20 as well. If I were to
>start judging batsmen from averages, I would not do justice to Asif
>Iqbal and likes.
>
> Salman [there are lies, damn lies, and cricket statistics] Azhar
>
>
Well, maybe :-) I dont agree that his batting talent matches Imrans
- I think Imran was a v technically correct bat, towards the end of his
career capable of making the Pakistani team on batting alone. I dont
believe Akram is capable of either. He, IMHO, plays a lot towards the slips
and so has much more trouble in test matches (in this, I echo the
opinion of a certain Michael Holding - or maybe he echoes mine ? :-)
Also, when Pak plays WI, they arent always 100/5, and when the play
India they aint (hopefully, at least :-) always 400/6 :-) ( I say, how bout
when they play Oz or NZ or Eng ? Does he get decent opportunities then ??
:-) ) Seriously, he has often come in during bad situations, but that
hardly covers all his innings. He's been around for about 9 years after
all. And he has (as I pointed out), only 1 test 50 in the last 3 years I
covered (with my non-forged data :-)) - surely there was more than one decent
batting situation ??
Look, Iam not trying to say Akram is a terrible bat, or even a bad
one. Just that he has batted badly so far in his career - that he hasnt
done justice to his batting talents yet. And that all-rounder status in not
granted anyone on talent alone (Chris Lewis had talent too - never really
became a test allrounder IMHO, tho I like Lewis a lot), you have to
demonstrate performance. An occasional 50 is not sufficient, IMHO - all the
real all-rounders (ie, the 80s quartet) did far better at their peak.
Akram, by rights, _should_ be an all-rounder. But, to date, he has not
done enough to be called one, IMHO. Thats all Iam saying, no more . :-)
As for Prabhakar, whoever mentioned him ?? I certainly didnt, in my
"piece" . I havent had the time to reply to some of the Pkar articles, I
will if I get the chance. Suffice it to say that I feel he isnt anywhere
close to the 80s quartet.
I do agree to some extent with the argument against stats - they
never tell the whole story and one can never completely compare players
with them. But surely , we cant abandon them completely, and they arent
totally opposed to truth ?? I mean, sure Asif might not compare with some
of the greatest ever in quantity of runs, but he is up there within some
sort of range. Isnt he one of the higher scorers ever for Pakistan, either
in terms of runs or of average ?? (Ci, currently up, says 3575 runs, a fair
quantity, I think :-). I do agree that once you get to a certain point,
averages dont tell the complete story (once you have an average of 40 in
tests, for example, you cant judge the difference between the batsmen by
saying one is 42 to the others 41, IMHO. They're all pretty hot stuff
batsmen). But the point is that Akram hasnt, IMHO, reached that level - his
stats (which, in the end, are the summation of his performances) are
glaringly weak.
Sadiq [ who doesnt always agree with Twain :-) ] Yusuf
D. Salman [Quintessential] Azhar
>some game where they flashed it when he came in. I do remember the 86 vs oz
>- with Mujtaba, was it ?? I've even seen highlights of it, v good inn it
>was too :-) .
No, the 86 was with no support at all. The rest of the team
collapsed while Akram stood tall. The innings with Mujtaba was back
in America's Cup. Akram came in at 11, and helped Mujtaba complete a
very courageous victory. Muj was new and unknown, and no one took him
seriously even after Benaud pointed out that that little man there is
accumulating runs and no one is taking note.
>far better ODI bat IMHO than a test bat. Again, a career strike rate of
>92ish is pretty much hot stuff, tho the 13 ish avg is a little too low
I think it is more like 98 or so. Before the disasterous
Aussie tour last year, it was over 100.
>ish). And yes, I do agree that it isnt easy to get 50s coming in late. He
>probably has tons of 30s and 40s.
> Also, when Pak plays WI, they arent always 100/5, and when the play
>India they aint (hopefully, at least :-) always 400/6 :-) ( I say, how bout
Well I was using that to point out that Pakistani batting is
fragile, and a good bolwing attack can completely shatter it.
Salman [thinks Akram has the batting talent to do better] Azhar