Watch how WASI has made amendments to his statement
Statement 1: "he wasted 138 deliveries to score 101, not good enough. a good century, but he has to have better strike rate."
Statement is too broad. The statement "not good enough" is indefinite and fails to suggest good enough for what.
Now everyone remember, this is just congratulatory post. We are merely just wishing Imrul on a maiden century.
Statement 2: "a strike rate of below 80 in an odi innings can not be good. that ground was a small ground, most of the time people score at a strike rate of 90+ in that ground i believe. wasting 138 balls to score 101, not very convincing. i am not saying he did bad, i am saying it is not good enough to outperform a top team."
States that Wasi believes everyone has a strike rate of 90+ without knowing the fact. Where only 2 out of last 10 innings the score was over 300+ and all other times, it was between 250-275, even so.
Also states strike rate below 80 in an ODI innings can not be good. Statement again is too broad and is interpreted as any batsman scoring under SR of 80 is not an good innings. Hence, the argument if batsman like Michael clarke, Collingwood and Sangakara are good batsman or not. Michael clarke's plays as a grafter almost every game and his career SR is 77. But yet everygame he bats and scores, Australia score near 280+.
Statement 3: "a strike rate below 80 is not acceptable in a small ground like christchurch. imrul batted well, it was not good enough to beat a top team."
Again a statement made without backing up with any facts. And now, WASI amended hie/her previous statement of "Not good enough"
Statement 4: "i was critical about imrul's strike rate, but i have to agree that i never saw a bangladeshi opener staying in the crease for 138 balls in an ODI. imrul did fine, he just needs to make sure he wastes less balls."
Now, as WASI mentioned before SR under 80 is not acceptable. Let's 138*0.8=110.4, means with a SR of 80 Imrul would have added only 9 more runs to take the score to 250. Now this open for discussion whether that would be a good total or not.
Statement 5: "NEVER SAID IMRUL'S KNOCK WAS BAD, I SAID IT WAS NOTHING SPECIAL. IT DID NOT HELP THE TEAM TO WIN"
It did help the team to get to point after 40 overs to post a good total. It wasn't his fault that Sakib thew his wicket, MUSHY took his time and others could not hit.
Statement 6: "so you are still saying strike rate under 80 is acceptable? i guess then you will be satisfied with a 220 score. wake up. imrul should have played more aggressively after 40 overs, that is where my problem is."
Now, a SR rate of 60 or 50 perhaps is not acceptable. However, everyone example i have given (Sangakara, collingwood, Clarke) avarages SR in 75-77 which is acceptable, since that what a grafter does, play a long innigs.
Now, u present another argument which is not even related this matter. i guess then you will be satisfied with a 220 score. The argument so far was that Imruls innings was not good enough or not. And you assumed that just because his 74 Sr was satisfying means all other batsmen have to score at the same rate. This is a totally different argument and no point going away from the point.
Statement 7: i hope you never become involved with BCB, you will turn my decent cricket team into a bigger joke. imrul's innings was not good enough to beat a top team, i repeat. but his innings was good enough to save a team from an embarrassment.
Well, u have reached the final frontier of any case. If you can't win with facts, it's always good to point out the other person has flawed personality that way the judy will be forced to agree as a mistrial. Hence, you attacked my knowladge of cricket.
But let me stand to my points and state again Imrul's inngings was good enough to beat any team. It wasn't his fault that other batsman couldn't capitalize it. Remember when ASH hit his century, Bashar played a grafter role and scored a vital half century with a SR of near 70 and then Aftab finished it with a SR of 120. Now, it was a team effort. However, besides imrul, everyother batsman was not satisfying.
Statement 8: "do not compare michael clarke with imrul kayes, do not hype imrul up for the sake of Bangladesh cricket."
I haven't not mentined Imrul is as good as Clarke. I simply presesnted an argument to your statement that SR under 80 is not good, then tell me why Clarke all the praise with a strike rate of 77. Neither i hyped Imrul or made any statements that he is future star. I simply argued to your statement that his innings was not good enough. To me, it was good enough to beat a top team and i give him my congrats.
Statement 9: "ok let's move on. imrul did good. hopefully we will win a few games very soon."
Thank you.
|