Message Board Archives

1. They've never once possessed a remotely decent fielding side.

2. They've never had a single solitary great fielder.

3. Their fielding has always been atrocious, and they've never elevated themselves from the very bottom of world cricket.

4. They'll regularly drop a batsman four or five times before he scores a century.

5. They can only go a few matches before people grow suspicious of their match-fixing tendencies.

6. These days they either play matches in the UAE(flattest tracks in the world), or away at the opposition's home.

Steven Donald Bradman Smith was dropped in the 50's, and then was caught off an edge when he was in the 90's, but Pakistan didn't appeal because they didn't know that he edged the delivery.

Should runs on flat wickets have an asterisk?

In reply to grugru

Do flat wickets produce results? How many Test matches are drawn these days?

In reply to grugru

THere is an asterisk against LAra's 375 and 400,rightly so..

Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Qadir....if you scored runs against that attack you should definitely have an asterisk

In reply to Devin

Runs scored out of the UAE against them should have asterisk...unless they are playing in ZIM or WI where the talent level is equal!

I don't know about asterisk, but there is always the fixingrisk

In reply to Devin
If Kholi scores them NO!
Any other batsman YES

In reply to Devin

As recently as a month ago Pakistan was the best Test team in the world, so how could a question like that be asked? However at times an asterisk should be placed next to the runs made against the WI.

In reply to Oilah

Not those Pakistani teams, even though their fielding was equally atrocious.

In reply to dayne

I think Pakistan fluked their way to a few victories, the way West Indies fluked a win in the third Test. Or was it a fluke, I mean it was Pakistan at the end of the day.

Nothing I said in the lead post is a lie, not even a stretch.

In reply to WestDem

In reply to dayne

No they were not. It was just the rankings that showed that they were #1.

In reply to gvenkat

Was it for a couple of weeks?