"If there's one match-winning fast-bowler after Wasim/Waqar, then that's Umar Gul" : Mohammad Hafeez

[MenInG]

"If there's one match-winning fast-bowler after Wasim/Waqar, then that's Umar Gul" : Mohammad Hafeez

Do you agree with this statement by Mohammad Hafeez?

He said that Shoaib Akhtar had presence but his match winning performances werent that many but Gul could win matches for Pakistan.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

Ofcourse he is going to back the class of 2003.

 

[pakistanisgreat]

this is little too much from Hafeez, what's his thoughts on Asif?

 

[Chief Destroyer]

They are close friends.

 

[kingusama92]

Definitely in T20s.

But that's about it.

 

[Forum363]

Akhtar, Asif, Ajmal, Yasir were easily better and consistent match winners.

Gul is in the league of Rana Naved, Wahab, Tanvir, Junaid, Irfan ie those who bowled some brilliant spells but had mediocre overall careers.

 

[todfod 11]

Do you agree with this statement by Mohammad Hafeez?

He said that Shoaib Akhtar had presence but his match winning performances werent that many but Gul could win matches for Pakistan.

total rubbish shoaib was one man army..it was his captains who couldnt handle him properly. Umar Gul doesnt even come close to Shoaibs bowling.

 

[waleed88]

total crap shoaib was one man army..it was his captains who couldnt handle him properly. Umar Gul doesnt even come close to Shoaibs bowling.

One man's army? Since when? He had Wasim and Waqar on his sides, then he was most effective with Mohammad Asif... in between he was pretty bad with Sami as a partner

 

[Major]

Asif and akhtar had short stint careers. Gul had the lingest stint.

You need a bowler to be consisstent and be there.

Hafeez is right.

As for skill, even mohammad irfan was better then gul, but irfan couldnt offer longtevity.

 

[waleed88]

Shoaib Akhtar didn't even achieve half of what Waqar achieved as a cricketer... so he is a big way off from them. I think Hafeez is right here, Umar Gul was the match winner that led us to our solitary t20 World Cup title.

Shoaib Akhtar has no such performance of note

 

[MenInG]

Akhtar, Asif, Ajmal, Yasir were easily better and consistent match winners.

Gul is in the league of Rana Naved, Wahab, Tanvir, Junaid, Irfan ie those who bowled some brilliant spells but had mediocre overall careers.

Hafeez commented that Asif didnt play enough and also accepted that in the last few years, its been our spinners who have won us more games.

 

[Major]

Shoaib Akhtar didn't even achieve half of what Waqar achieved as a cricketer... so he is a big way off from them. I think Hafeez is right here, Umar Gul was the match winner that led us to our solitary t20 World Cup title.

Shoaib Akhtar has no such performance of note

Shoaib akhtar was always involved in somethibg. Bannes in 2007 world t20. Missed out 2007 world cup, missed a champions trophy.

Finally in 2010 till 2011 he kept himself well and didnt act immature and was able to play a world cup

 

[ask_analyse_act]

total rubbish shoaib was one man army..it was his captains who couldnt handle him properly. Umar Gul doesnt even come close to Shoaibs bowling.

Agree...was handled well by wasim, but then after that no one was a good thinking captain... Now they have got one in sarfraz... Shouldnt compare to what and how wahab was used by sarfraz... wahab dont even come close any of Akthar's era... Akthar can swing the newball with pace, Wahab cannot swing except reverse swing...

 

[Zaz]

No way Gul was a big underperformer esp in test cricket At least shoaib has performances in the biggest format when he did play and avged 25 or so

Gul was pretty mediocre throughout his test career and barring a few odis and in t20s he was decidely poor

A career that shouldve finished a lot better

 

[Justcrazy]

Hafeez was wrong.

Apart from 20 20 Gul has not achieved anything special.

 

[Mainul]

Hafeez to Gul ( Gul means false statement in Bangla) mar raha hai.

 

[yokoonodie]

If there's one match-winning alrounder after Imran Khan then that's Mohammed Hafeez- Umar Gul

 

[umerz]

Umer Gul has under achieved massively. I am not sure whether it was injuries or lack of will/courage to make a come back

 

[shaz619]

Shoaib Akhtar didn't even achieve half of what Waqar achieved as a cricketer... so he is a big way off from them. I think Hafeez is right here, Umar Gul was the match winner that led us to our solitary t20 World Cup title.

Shoaib Akhtar has no such performance of note

Shoaib akhtar was always involved in somethibg. Bannes in 2007 world t20. Missed out 2007 world cup, missed a champions trophy.

Finally in 2010 till 2011 he kept himself well and didnt act immature and was able to play a world cup

Akhtar played in the 1999 World cup and had a great tournament, the spell in the semi was brilliant. Had no runs to defend in the final but overall a great tournament for him.


A far superior bowler in Tests as well. I would only pick Gul over Akhtar in T20 cricket [MENTION=141557]Chief Destroyer[/MENTION]

 

[goran]

Gul was good only in T20s and that's about it. Was quite mediocre in ODIs and Tests. I guess Hafeez has taken the professor tag too seriously. Need to calm down and concentrate on his career rather than making baseless statements.

 

[coy0607]

Gul is underrated as a match winner. He wasn't consistent, but when he was in form he was definitely a force

Hafeez might be right. Gul may be the biggest match winner since Wasim / Waqar. It's between Gul and Ahktar. Hassan may go past them in 3-4 years

 

[todfod 11]

Agree...was handled well by wasim, but then after that no one was a good thinking captain... Now they have got one in sarfraz... Shouldnt compare to what and how wahab was used by sarfraz... wahab dont even come close any of Akthar's era... Akthar can swing the newball with pace, Wahab cannot swing except reverse swing...

wahab has no brains... Shoaib always targeted the batsmens weakness. He would pitch short balls to ganguly and company.. yorker to tailenders. he always had a plan for a batsmen except for days when he went a lil over confident. otherwise he was a genius of a bowler.

 

[todfod 11]

One man's army? Since when? He had Wasim and Waqar on his sides, then he was most effective with Mohammad Asif... in between he was pretty bad with Sami as a partner

Asif came in 2005 and wasnt good enough then made a come back around late 2006. Akhter was a sheer genius and he never needed a bowling partner. On his day he would run through batting line ups like it nothing. Go watch his bowling against NZ against England in 2005 series against Australia in Sharjah and many more. There has been no bowler since he left who could run through batting line ups like he use to do..

 

[todfod 11]

Akhtar played in the 1999 World cup and had a great tournament, the spell in the semi was brilliant. Had no runs to defend in the final but overall a great tournament for him.


A far superior bowler in Tests as well. I would only pick Gul over Akhtar in T20 cricket [MENTION=141557]Chief Destroyer[/MENTION]

Remember there were no t20s in akhters prime. If only T20 have been played around 2000 you would nt have even argued on that.

 

[KyoOne]

Insanity

Akhtar had all the tools in his bag -- pace, aggression, yorkers, bouncers, reverse swing, conventional swing with the new ball, off-cutters (2007 onwards he had mastered the art of slower deliveries, often deceiving top batsmen in death overs) and most importantly he had brains to work out a batsman. It was a thrill to watch him run in and bowl.

He only had two constraints which affected his "longetivity" crybabies here whine about - unsupportive board, where quite a few officials, including Nasim Ashraf himself, were hell-bent upon dropping him off the team, and natural abnormalities (flat foot, abnormal joints where fluid would be filled due to friction causing extreme pain, asthma and bronchitis).

It was a miracle that Shoaib even played. His achievements, fastest ball and hatricks among them, speak volumes about the passion and determination of the individual to overcome all adversaries and become a top cricketer of his generation.

Gul was just another bowler, who had moments. Nothing special.

 

[waleed88]

Akhtar played in the 1999 World cup and had a great tournament, the spell in the semi was brilliant. Had no runs to defend in the final but overall a great tournament for him.


A far superior bowler in Tests as well. I would only pick Gul over Akhtar in T20 cricket [MENTION=141557]Chief Destroyer[/MENTION]

Yes this is what Hafeez is referring to here, what Shoaib Akhtar was, his stats say otherwise. Contrary to popular belief, his stats in the World cup 1999 were not that great in the 1999 world cup. He was the seventh highest wicket taker of the tournament. Took 16 wickets, one less than our highest wicket taker of the tournament : Saqlain Mushtaq who had 17 wickets (5th highest overall). He took 1 wicket more than Wasim Akram who had 15 wickets.

Also contrary to popular beleif, (Shoaib Akhtar ran through sides), it was a show a unity in the bowling attack kinda like it was for us in the CT 2017, where all bowlers contributed their part. Very handy were Razzaq and Azhar Mahmood who each picked 13 wickets. They completed a beautiful combination for us. Wasim, Akhtar, Razzaq,Mahmood and Saqlain (our top wicket taker) all made great inroads for us throughout that tournament, the balance provided throughout the lineup brought great stability and all these gentlemen except Akhtar very handy with the bat too.

I think for me this was the most lethal bowling attack for Pakistan in the modern era of cricket for us... but it was not only Akhtar's doing as the 'myth' goes.

Gul on the other hand also had support from Afridi and Ajmal, but he was the top wicket taker of the tournament. Who outbowled, outperformed anyone in the competition. Also was the first man to pick up a t20 5'fer in the International matches

 

[waleed88]

Remember there were no t20s in akhters prime. If only T20 have been played around 2000 you would nt have even argued on that.

you can only do in which era you belong too. t20s were a part of Akhtar's career. He played in the IPL, he was a part of the inaugral World t20 2007, he wasn't selected for the editions of 2009,10. He was a failure on his part for making the selectors believe he could bring anything different. 2007 Akhtar was just indisciplined which is why he was thrown out for hitting Asif with the bat.

Also in a t20 match against India in Canada, Akhtar was taken apart to all corners whereas Gul tried his best to contain the damage. Eventually we lost in the end thanks to AKhtars wayward bowling. His wayward bowling in limited overs has been a feature of his career throughout, and he has lost many a matches thanks to his indisicpline. And especially against India

 

[waleed88]

Insanity

Akhtar had all the tools in his bag -- pace, aggression, yorkers, bouncers, reverse swing, conventional swing with the new ball, off-cutters (2007 onwards he had mastered the art of slower deliveries, often deceiving top batsmen in death overs) and most importantly he had brains to work out a batsman. It was a thrill to watch him run in and bowl.

He only had two constraints which affected his "longetivity" crybabies here whine about - unsupportive board, where quite a few officials, including Nasim Ashraf himself, were hell-bent upon dropping him off the team, and natural abnormalities (flat foot, abnormal joints where fluid would be filled due to friction causing extreme pain, asthma and bronchitis).

It was a miracle that Shoaib even played. His achievements, fastest ball and hatricks among them, speak volumes about the passion and determination of the individual to overcome all adversaries and become a top cricketer of his generation.

Gul was just another bowler, who had moments. Nothing special.

Why was it a 'miracle' that he played Internatioanl cricket at all? If you want to be a rebel, and have a problem with everyone. Break rules, reprimand authroity, take drugs. You deserved the highest punishment. Nobody was AKhtar's enemy but his own self sadly. Alot of article referring to his career said he underperformed which was his own doing

 

[waleed88]

Asif came in 2005 and wasnt good enough then made a come back around late 2006. Akhter was a sheer genius and he never needed a bowling partner. On his day he would run through batting line ups like it nothing. Go watch his bowling against NZ against England in 2005 series against Australia in Sharjah and many more. There has been no bowler since he left who could run through batting line ups like he use to do..

were they match winning? Except for his exploits from 1999-2003, Akhtar never really had a peak in his career.

 

[waleed88]

Asif came in 2005 and wasnt good enough then made a come back around late 2006. Akhter was a sheer genius and he never needed a bowling partner. On his day he would run through batting line ups like it nothing. Go watch his bowling against NZ against England in 2005 series against Australia in Sharjah and many more. There has been no bowler since he left who could run through batting line ups like he use to do..

Don't think Akhtar ever ran though a lineup post his 2003 self. He never had the fitness for it. THe moments were few and far in between. A 5'fer against ENgland in Multan which were match winning... then the performances in Australia (none of them could be said 'match winning')... an ODI 5'fer vs England in 2005-6 (a nandrolone pumped Akhtar using drugs to enhance his performance ) was the last 5'fer I remember.

So from a year of 2006-2011, he probably had only 1 5'fer to show for his efforts. A regular bowler, who had no redeeming quality except his pace, and his antics to keep himself in the news

 

[todfod 11]

you can only do in which era you belong too. t20s were a part of Akhtar's career. He played in the IPL, he was a part of the inaugral World t20 2007, he wasn't selected for the editions of 2009,10. He was a failure on his part for making the selectors believe he could bring anything different. 2007 Akhtar was just indisciplined which is why he was thrown out for hitting Asif with the bat.

Also in a t20 match against India in Canada, Akhtar was taken apart to all corners whereas Gul tried his best to contain the damage. Eventually we lost in the end thanks to AKhtars wayward bowling. His wayward bowling in limited overs has been a feature of his career throughout, and he has lost many a matches thanks to his indisicpline. And especially against India

were they match winning? Except for his exploits from 1999-2003, Akhtar never really had a peak in his career.

Don't think Akhtar ever ran though a lineup post his 2003 self. He never had the fitness for it. THe moments were few and far in between. A 5'fer against ENgland in Multan which were match winning... then the performances in Australia (none of them could be said 'match winning')... an ODI 5'fer vs England in 2005-6 (a nandrolone pumped Akhtar using drugs to enhance his performance ) was the last 5'fer I remember.

So from a year of 2006-2011, he probably had only 1 5'fer to show for his efforts. A regular bowler, who had no redeeming quality except his pace, and his antics to keep himself in the news

its just the way you see it.. No point arguing about some thing we both wont agree on. For me Gul is not even 20 percent of a bowler akbter ever was. even if you take into consideration match winning spells Vull doesnt make 20 percent of what akhter dis and achieved.

 

[waleed88]

its just the way you see it.. No point arguing about some thing we both wont agree on. For me Gul is not even 20 percent of a bowler akbter ever was. even if you take into consideration match winning spells Vull doesnt make 20 percent of what akhter dis and achieved.

Yes but Gul contributed to something historic for Pakistan, which Hafeez is alluding to here. Which Shoaib never did

 

[Ahmad Shah]

apart from eng vs pak odi series 2010
and worldcup 2011

i dont remember any of his significant performance in ODIs

he was pretty mediocre

 

[shaz619]

Yes this is what Hafeez is referring to here, what Shoaib Akhtar was, his stats say otherwise. Contrary to popular belief, his stats in the World cup 1999 were not that great in the 1999 world cup. He was the seventh highest wicket taker of the tournament. Took 16 wickets, one less than our highest wicket taker of the tournament : Saqlain Mushtaq who had 17 wickets (5th highest overall). He took 1 wicket more than Wasim Akram who had 15 wickets.

Also contrary to popular beleif, (Shoaib Akhtar ran through sides), it was a show a unity in the bowling attack kinda like it was for us in the CT 2017, where all bowlers contributed their part. Very handy were Razzaq and Azhar Mahmood who each picked 13 wickets. They completed a beautiful combination for us. Wasim, Akhtar, Razzaq,Mahmood and Saqlain (our top wicket taker) all made great inroads for us throughout that tournament, the balance provided throughout the lineup brought great stability and all these gentlemen except Akhtar very handy with the bat too.

I think for me this was the most lethal bowling attack for Pakistan in the modern era of cricket for us... but it was not only Akhtar's doing as the 'myth' goes.

Gul on the other hand also had support from Afridi and Ajmal, but he was the top wicket taker of the tournament. Who outbowled, outperformed anyone in the competition. Also was the first man to pick up a t20 5'fer in the International matches

I always felt he had a decent tournament in 1999 and going by his figures (16 wickets @ 24.43, economy 4.53) finishing in the top 7 overall and top 5 in terms of wickets is hardly a bad achievement but praising it is not suggesting he was the best bowler of the tournament either. I also don't think people abide by the myth that he single highhandedly destroyed teams because he had a great support from that fantastic bowling attack as you say but he could also win you games at times on his day and his numbers don't do always do him justice given that he was an attacking fast bowler. Anyhow what added to his aura was his superstar appeal, from a Pakistan and neutral POV he was great to watch.

Would you pick Gul over Akhtar in Tests and ODI's ?

 

[mueez14]

Shoaib was the best...yes he had discipline and fitness issues.. but had he played the number of matches consistently like gul played for 6 to 7 years.. he surely would have gotten better record ..even better than waqar.. because skill and pace and aura wise..gul doesn't come close to shoaib.. batsmen feared of him genuinely..crowd wanted to watch him run and bowl..star bowler..

 

[ask_analyse_act]

I think hafeez is trying to play cunningly here by teaming up with comeback groups as he was dropped from the t20 side vs world 11.

 

[backfootpunch]

Only a fool would rate Gul either as a matchwinner or a greater bowler than Shoaib. It's obvious Hafeez isn't Shoaib's greatest fan.

 

[Rayyman]

Rank 1: Wasim Akram, Imran Khan, Waqar Younis (ATGs)

Rank 2: Shoaib Akhtar, Mohammad Amir, Mohammad Asif (Pak Legends)

Rank 3: Aaqib Javed, Umar Gul, Wahab Riaz, Mohammad Sami, Mohammad Irfan (Good bowlers)

 

[idrizzy]

Rank 1: Wasim Akram, Imran Khan, Waqar Younis (ATGs)

Rank 2: Shoaib Akhtar, Mohammad Amir, Mohammad Asif (Pak Legends)

Rank 3: Aaqib Javed, Umar Gul, Wahab Riaz, Mohammad Sami, Mohammad Irfan (Good bowlers)

He could be an ATG depending on how he does within the next few tournaments

 

[Rayyman]

He could be an ATG depending on how he does within the next few tournaments

I mean Professor was talking about match-winning performances and Amir helped win us WT20 and CT final.

 

[waleed88]

I mean Professor was talking about match-winning performances and Amir helped win us WT20 and CT final.

Yes - CT final

No - t20 world cup final, where he was taken apart for 20 runs in the final over. It was a rubbish performance that took the total from below 120 to a formidable one of 140 in just one over

 

[waleed88]

I always felt he had a decent tournament in 1999 and going by his figures (16 wickets @ 24.43, economy 4.53) finishing in the top 7 overall and top 5 in terms of wickets is hardly a bad achievement but praising it is not suggesting he was the best bowler of the tournament either. I also don't think people abide by the myth that he single highhandedly destroyed teams because he had a great support from that fantastic bowling attack as you say but he could also win you games at times on his day and his numbers don't do always do him justice given that he was an attacking fast bowler. Anyhow what added to his aura was his superstar appeal, from a Pakistan and neutral POV he was great to watch.

Would you pick Gul over Akhtar in Tests and ODI's ?

Some names above Akhtar in 1999 : Geoff Aliott, Shane Warne, Mcgrath, Saqlain, Allan Donald..

Pace is overrated, and he was taken apart in the few of the matches too, lets not forget the group amtch against WI, Australia

 

[waleed88]

I always felt he had a decent tournament in 1999 and going by his figures (16 wickets @ 24.43, economy 4.53) finishing in the top 7 overall and top 5 in terms of wickets is hardly a bad achievement but praising it is not suggesting he was the best bowler of the tournament either. I also don't think people abide by the myth that he single highhandedly destroyed teams because he had a great support from that fantastic bowling attack as you say but he could also win you games at times on his day and his numbers don't do always do him justice given that he was an attacking fast bowler. Anyhow what added to his aura was his superstar appeal, from a Pakistan and neutral POV he was great to watch.

Would you pick Gul over Akhtar in Tests and ODI's ?

I would pick Gul in Test Matches (Shoaib hardly played a full test match in his entire career besides one or two games, where in both innings he was available and fielding, not resting his knees in the dressing room)
In this era where players are not allowed that much time off as a player regardless of being injured, I don't think Shoaib would've survived as a cricketer let alone an International player.

No in ODIS

 

[Abdullah719]

I would pick Gul in Test Matches (Shoaib hardly played a full test match in his entire career besides one or two games, where in both innings he was available and fielding, not resting his knees in the dressing room)

Bowler 1 has an average of 25.5, economy of 3.4 and a SR of 45.7 with 12 5fers and 2 10fers.
Bowler 2 has an average of 34, economy of 3.5 and a SR of 59 with 4 5fers and 0 10fers.

... And you will pick bowler 2?

 

[waleed88]

Bowler 1 has an average of 25.5, economy of 3.4 and a SR of 45.7 with 12 5fers and 2 10fers.
Bowler 2 has an average of 34, economy of 3.5 and a SR of 59 with 4 5fers and 0 10fers.

... And you will pick bowler 2?

Yes because bowler 2 can stay on his feet for 5 days.

What would you prefer? A lamborghini that breaks down every week?

Or a corolla that gives you consistency and mileage and doesn't break down year after year?

Gul bowled many more overs can bowl at anytime of the day at a good speed

 

[waleed88]

Test matches is not just about stats, there are periods in the game when wickets donot fall and you can only keep things tight, when there are placid pitches and the pitch is not reversing.

Remember Pakistan's home series vs India in 2004, Akhtar was a sitting duck in that series whereas Shoaib Akhtar went wicketless in most games, and we were left Kaneria and Sami to do the heavy lifting

What happens to the team when a bowler like Akhtar breaks down the second innings? You are fighting a test match with a hand tied behind your back

 

[shaz619]

Some names above Akhtar in 1999 : Geoff Aliott, Shane Warne, Mcgrath, Saqlain, Allan Donald..

Pace is overrated, and he was taken apart in the few of the matches too, lets not forget the group amtch against WI, Australia

I would pick Gul in Test Matches (Shoaib hardly played a full test match in his entire career besides one or two games, where in both innings he was available and fielding, not resting his knees in the dressing room)
In this era where players are not allowed that much time off as a player regardless of being injured, I don't think Shoaib would've survived as a cricketer let alone an International player.

No in ODIS

That's not to say Allot is greater then Mcgrath which is why am looking at those figures individually in 1999 are they seriously not that great and lmao are you trolling about taking Gul in Tests )

 

[Abdullah719]

[MENTION=135196]waleed88[/MENTION] Your argument would have merit if Gul and Akhtar were somewhat comparable as Test-class bowlers. But they aren't even close.

For the record, 36% of the overs Akhtar bowled in Test cricket were in the second innings of matches. For Gul, the figure was 37%. Minimal difference. Your argument is not based on facts.

 

[waleed88]

[MENTION=135196]waleed88[/MENTION] Your argument would have merit if Gul and Akhtar were somewhat comparable as Test-class bowlers. But they aren't even close.

For the record, 36% of the overs Akhtar bowled in Test cricket were in the second innings of matches. For Gul, the figure was 37%. Minimal difference. Your argument is not based on facts.

Yes a career spanning 14 years with 43 test matches tells it own story...

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=135196]waleed88[/MENTION] Your argument would have merit if Gul and Akhtar were somewhat comparable as Test-class bowlers. But they aren't even close.

For the record, 36% of the overs Akhtar bowled in Test cricket were in the second innings of matches. For Gul, the figure was 37%. Minimal difference. Your argument is not based on facts.

He's having a laugh I don't believe he is serious, by his logic Anderson is better then Botham due to his longevity

 

[waleed88]

That's not to say Allot is greater then Mcgrath which is why am looking at those figures individually in 1999 are they seriously not that great and lmao are you trolling about taking Gul in Tests )

But Warne is and he was rightly bowler of the tournament for me, for his performances in Semis and the finals. Both MOM went to him in those games.

The same was true for other bowlers, Mcgrath, Saqlain, Donald were all better than Akhtar and probably even more economical.

 

[Abdullah719]

Yes a career spanning 14 years with 43 test matches tells it own story...

Yes we know he had problems with his knees...

BTW Gul has had his fair share of injuries... I'm not sure why you're acting as though bowlers choose to get injured.

Anyway, Gul has played 47 Test matches in 14 years himself... He suffered injuries in the earlier part of his career and then later was simply not good enough to be considered. And yet you will pick him over Akhtar?

 

[shaz619]

But Warne is and he was rightly bowler of the tournament for me, for his performances in Semis and the finals. Both MOM went to him in those games.

The same was true for other bowlers, Mcgrath, Saqlain, Donald were all better than Akhtar and probably even more economical.

These comparisons are futile when Akhtar had a great tournament in itself because x or y being better is a subjective matter but what is not subjective is the fact that his figures are not something you could deem to be poor

 

[Abdullah719]

He's having a laugh I don't believe he is serious, by his logic Anderson is better then Botham due to his longevity

It may seem like it but I am quite sure he is serious.

 

[shaz619]

It may seem like it but I am quite sure he is serious.

Maybe you're right, depends on his agenda; he has a similar stubborn view with regards to Amir as well Have lost respect for his views.

 

[mak36]

This argument defies logic- there is no way you can justify picking Gul over Akhtar in tests.

 

[Stewie]

Gul may have won us some games but he also lost us quite a few which we would have won had it not been for his insipid display on days when he was off, and those happened quite frequently during big games.

 

[waleed88]

Gul may have won us some games but he also lost us quite a few which we would have won had it not been for his insipid display on days when he was off, and those happened quite frequently during big games.

Same for Akhtar. 2004 India series, 2003 World cup match against India... absentee in numerous high profile series... that game against NZ in 2011 world cup which was his last one

 

[todfod 11]

Same for Akhtar. 2004 India series, 2003 World cup match against India... absentee in numerous high profile series... that game against NZ in 2011 world cup which was his last one

kamran dropped 2 catches of his bowling of 2 balls. get ur facts right bro. Cricketers such as dhoni still talks about akhter but who talks about Gul.. Gul should have retired after 2011 world cup as well.

 

[waleed88]

kamran dropped 2 catches of his bowling of 2 balls. get ur facts right bro. Cricketers such as dhoni still talks about akhter but who talks about Gul.. Gul should have retired after 2011 world cup as well.

Shoaib Akhtar was so fatigued at that time, no matter who the batsman was he would get taken apart. Its a fact Akhtar started panting after 4 hours on a trot... you can see he was not the same bowler he used to be

 

[todfod 11]

Shoaib Akhtar was so fatigued at that time, no matter who the batsman was he would get taken apart. Its a fact Akhtar started panting after 4 hours on a trot... you can see he was not the same bowler he used to be

I do not know where you taking the argument but if you want to compare then compare both in their prime. And Shoaib is miles ahead.