Strange because if he was so good, how come he doesn't have more fifties?Why strangely? yesterday showed he can bat.
For me it doesnt matter. I rate the Ashes higher than any World Cup. Its just a personal opinion. Though my interest in the shorter versions of the game (50 and 20 overs) has increased over the past few years!aditya123 said:so, does it mean you won`t mind England losing all the ODI matches in this series and in India and fail to qualify for the Super Eights in the World Cup ?
Dont worry, Pakistan will take care of your worries. You wont have to win 4-1.barmyarmy said:The ODI series is irrelevant. Even if we win it 4-1 from here it is the tests that count.
ZoraxDoom said:Strange because if he was so good, how come he doesn't have more fifties?
PakiFan said:i think shoaib malik has performed at all positions, so inzi shuffles his position according to the conditions....Malik can hit in the last overs but if Younis Khan is there, he cant hit a lot... he is just a kind of player who relies on singles and doubles...But in last overs younis khan is not suitable...
But one thing to be worried about is that changing Malik's position too often, can affect his performance....
Sureshot said:We didn''t have to bowl Solanki, he bowled as the game was over and to give the bowlers a rest for Thursday.
barmyarmy said:The ODI series is irrelevant. Even if we win it 4-1 from here it is the tests that count.
I would play Anderson and Blackwell instead of Plunkett and Giles. Solanki as the supersub.Sureshot said:Solanki is a more than capable off spinner, infact he nearly had a C&B.
I see what you mean though. Our normal ODI side would be (if everyone fit):
Tres
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Jones
Giles
Jones
Harmison
Plunkett/Ali
Now in there we have 5 full time bowlers + Collingwood (not sure whether he's part time or full time), Vaughan (more than capable), Trescothick (has a first class hat trick).
They've always used Solanki as SS, haven't they? I wonder who is going to be Pakistan's SS now that Afridi can play. Any news about that that I may have missed?m_vaughan said:I would play Anderson and Blackwell instead of Plunkett and Giles. Solanki as the supersub.
Wide 1.Sureshot said:Eh?
That bit on Anderson really confuses me, he didn't play yesterday.
What does Y1 mean?
How do you get Y from wide?nightprowler10 said:Wide 1.
Because W stands for wicket and can get confusing. The suffix is the number of runs off it.andrew_nixon said:How do you get Y from wide?
You'd have to ask the good people at Cricinfo, that's where I saw it first. I'm assuming it has something to do with the fact that using 'W' would confuse people. Perhaps using Y has something to do with the shape of the letter? Just imagine that letter placed flat on a cricket pitch from the umpires view.andrew_nixon said:How do you get Y from wide?