waqar goraya
ODI Debutant
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Runs
- 9,434
In England during Champions Trophy we might not need 3 spinners in the XI. If it comes to that who would be your first choice and why?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lol. Good joke.Obviously Imad Wasim is better. It isn't even a comparison.
Lol. Good joke.
Imad had an excellent series in England last year so his case is strong right now, Shadab is untested against the big boys on a flat wicket, he was not as impressive in the Odi series as he was in the t20 series. So for CT this year Imad would be an automatic choice for the management, Mickey and Sarfraz likes him too, that's a big plus. After a couple years, Shadab will be an automatic choice I'm sure in these conditions, he'll develop quickly.
Care to elaborate.Obviously Imad Wasim is better. It isn't even a comparison.
In terms of batting, Shadab hadn't even gotten a chance to bat yet. Imad would be a much better option at 7 especially in a big match. Also he is left handed and has a few fifties + good average + solid strike rate. I see no reason why both can't play. Especially if Yamin comes in. Then we can have all three all-rounders at 6, 7, and 8 with four pacers. Otherwise, I would have Imad over Shadab at 7.Care to elaborate.
I think it's already settled that Shadab is the better wicket taker out of the pair. Imad may hold down an end but the requirement of modern day LO cricket is wickets- if you aren't taking enough wickets in the middle overs it allows the opposition to attack at the end.
Agreed man. Unfortunately, most people will disagree because Shady is in PP hype machine atm.
Both are necessary, Imad is a better batsman and Shadab is a better bowler.
Imad is as good a batsman as Anwar Ali.
Don't be fooled.
Both are necessary, Imad is a better batsman and Shadab is a better bowler.
Its a flawed question. These two dont compete for a slot in the team based on current form.
You choose both. Having two all rounders is never bad. Please lets not call Malik an all rounder. He plays solely as a batsman (and pretty good at that!).
Hafeez is also playing as an all-rounder. So, you don't believe Pakistan should ever go with 4 pacers?
Don't you think we might need 4 pacers at some stage in English conditions? Don't you think for some tracks 3 spinners would be more than needed?
I repeat, on current form, one is an all rounder and the other is a spinner. A genuine spinner can always be played regardless of pitch, but he would compete for a slot vs the fast bowlers .
There is no basis yet to talk about Shadab's form in international LOIs. Hes come too far down the order. But he was in terrific form in the PSL, and judging by his range of shots, is someone you would rather have than Imad if 30 quick runs have to plundered in the death overs.
Hafeez is also playing as an all-rounder. So, you don't believe Pakistan should ever go with 4 pacers?
There is no basis yet to talk about Shadab's form in international LOIs. Hes come too far down the order. But he was in terrific form in the PSL, and judging by his range of shots, is someone you would rather have than Imad if 30 quick runs have to plundered in the death overs.
Shady is a nice young talent; But he has only played 3 matches and all v.s. WI.
I'd like to think our best performing LO bowler would be an automatic pick.IMO our bigger issue is fast bowlers. Other than Amir we don't have a bowler who automatically gets selected. Wahab Riaz is too inconsistent and hardly delivers match winning performance
Would actually have Imad for that. Mainly because he is a hack and Shadab is a proper batsman. The latter will end up playing like Rizwan did vs Aus., if you remember. Imad has also worked on his hitting and is a better clean hitter. Shadab will give you scoops, lap shots and late cuts. It all depends on the pitch. Whether the batsman can hit through the line or has to play with a crossed bat.
I would play Imad for now but if he can't seem to keep the runs down, Shadab can come in. Shadab is a secret weapon because not many have seen him so he should be brought in for the semi-finals, which will be against a team that doesn't play spin very well.
Only one of them should in England, however. We have two spinners in Hafeez and Malik already and playing two more would be absolutely terrible, considering that we're in a group with India and Sri Lanka. Imad or Shadab should bat at #7 and below them we need four pacers. Hafeez and Malik can fill in with a few overs, if needed.
Amir, Junaid, Hassan, Riaz, Imad/Shadab and Hafeez & Malik. Perfectly balanced attack for a tournament in England.
I would play Imad for now but if he can't seem to keep the runs down, Shadab can come in. Shadab is a secret weapon because not many have seen him so he should be brought in for the semi-finals, which will be against a team that doesn't play spin very well.
Only one of them should in England, however. We have two spinners in Hafeez and Malik already and playing two more would be absolutely terrible, considering that we're in a group with India and Sri Lanka. Imad or Shadab should bat at #7 and below them we need four pacers. Hafeez and Malik can fill in with a few overs, if needed.
Amir, Junaid, Hassan, Riaz, Imad/Shadab and Hafeez & Malik. Perfectly balanced attack for a tournament in England.
Damn, Junaid Khan and MoAmir in one team is overkill. Will be interesting to see them who wins their fights for ODI 5fers.
Hard to think of anything more innocuous these days than Maliks offspin. Fortunately he makes the cut as a batsman. But if you want a genuine wicket taking spin option than Shadab is the best there is.
Sure.
As he is the 7th bowling option, that isn't a problem. I would save Shadab for when we really need him and we don't really need him against Sri Lanka and India that are unlikely to be troubled by a spinner on English pitches. For now, let's keep Imad as the frontline spinner and ask him to focus on his economy while the four pace bowlers attack. An unknown leggie, with a very good doosra would be hell for England and Australia during the semi-finals and that is where Shadab comes in.
Do you promise to create a thread if Junaid averages below 30 in the CT?
I don't care about averages, only performance. If he performs well and still has a high average, I will appreciate it. Wahab statistically was terrible in the last CT, but anyone who watched the tournament knew that he bowled quite well. If he bowls well, I will acknowledge it. However, if he fails (which he will), will you finally admit that he is not international standard anymore and needs to be shown the door?
As always, you are simply unwilling to put a price on your words and take up a challenge. Who decides whether Junaid bowled well or not? You or me? You probably don't even think he bowled well in his comeback series in Australia, yet anyone who is unbiased knows that he did quite well.
If Junaid averages in the 40s or God forbid, even higher, I will certainly want him dropped.
Junaid turned it on vs India in 2012/13 and bowled the best spell I'd seen in ages while big match player Wahab bowled a brilliant spell vs Watson in the last major ODI event. From a neutral point of view, both are must for team Pakistan!No more Junaid, no more Wahab, please. Hasan Amir and Sohail works a treat for me.
Sorry but I am not used to hiding behind stats like you. According to you, Amla didn't fail in the 2011 World Cup because his average was 40+, even though that was because most of his runs came against Ireland and Bangladesh. It is possible for Junaid to have poor stats in spite of bowling well, and it is also possible for him to have decent stats without bowling well. That is why a statistical cut-off point is meaningless.
You don't need stats to know who has bowled well or who hasn't. If you have to use stats to prove that someone played well, then he really didn't. Good performance shows, and you don't need numbers. They are only important when you are reflecting on past performances of the players that you have not seen play. Whether Junaid bowls well or not, we will come to know in the Champions Trophy and but his average and strike rate etc. etc. will not matter, which nonetheless should be quite poor as well. The guy is embarrassing himself beyond measure in the Pakistan Cup - both performance and stats-wise.
Like I said, when you and I have vastly different views on Junaid, Amla, etc, we will never come to an agreement on when they played well and when they did not. That is why you needs stats to show you the truth of the matter because in the words of Philander "stats don't lie". You can of course, be intelligent about it and delve deeper into these stats and figure out what really happened but stats are definitely necessary to make an unbiased judgement in cricket.
I hope Pakistan's four pronged pace attack does well because that is the only way we are going deep in this tournament. The batting is extremely thin and the spinners won't pose much difficulty to India.
Junaid turned it on vs India in 2012/13 and bowled the best spell I'd seen in ages while big match player Wahab bowled a brilliant spell vs Watson in the last major ODI event. From a neutral point of view, both are must for team Pakistan!
Good point. Not to mention he hit 2 brilliant 6s vs Ashwin/India in the Asia Cup, if only he was not in retirement. My replacement for him would be Bilawal Bhatti, a very underrated, hardhitting allrounder.sorry, you lost me at watson.
afridi also once hit the worlds fastest ODI century. time for a recall you think?
Good point. Not to mention he hit 2 brilliant 6s vs Ashwin/India in the Asia Cup, if only he was not in retirement. My replacement for him would be Bilawal Bhatti, a very underrated, hardhitting allrounder.