Congrats to Imrul Kayes for maiden ODI Century

[AsifTheManRahman]

Originally Posted by Beamer
What pleases me the most is more and more of our players are scoring centuries frequently in both forms of game. It is always a big deal to score a one day century, especially overseas, and because of that I congratulate Imrul. Style points are a misnomer for a cricket team like us. We need runs, players scoring centuries, more and more..

Scoring centuries is indeed a big deal and one of the reasons why I don't rate Aftab much as a batsman.

[Beamer]

I rate Aftab highly. I am biased here beyond any reason. I won't even attempt to justify. Aftab produces the most sweetest sound of " bat meet ball " than I have ever heard from any Bangladeshi player.

[Tiger444]

I would much rather have batsmen like Imrul, Roqibul, and Mahmudullah then flashes like alok, aftab and ash..these guys just throw their wickets playing such unnecessary shots..the way aftab got out just shows hes not a top order batsman for ODIs..those 3 really should not be in the team..we need to have players that put a price on their wickets rather then guys who just have shots in the book..hopefully imrul continues the good solid work..

[Musfique]

Originally Posted by Beamer
I rate Aftab highly. I am biased here beyond any reason. I won't even attempt to justify. Aftab produces the most sweetest sound of " bat meet ball " than I have ever heard from any Bangladeshi player.

I agree.

Aftab has a fantastic technique against seam bowlers which the other Bd players lack, other than Ashraful. Namely...

1) Great balance at the wicket
2) Remains still until the bowler releases the ball

The above skills are more important than footwork, because it gives a batsmen more time to react, and hence he is a good puller an hooker.

The trouble with him is shot selection. I truely believe in this kid.

I hope that J.Siddons and the selectors see the same thing and ensure that he gets couple of years n the domestic setup so he can learn and understand his game. If we persist with him at the international level, the pressure to perform immediately wil mean that he will become another incomplete player.

Mosh.

[Peace]

Originally Posted by Beamer
I rate Aftab highly. I am biased here beyond any reason. I won't even attempt to justify. Aftab produces the most sweetest sound of " bat meet ball " than I have ever heard from any Bangladeshi player.

This sound like Ash’s excuse when he said that he was playing well until the ball span a bit and he got out.

Aftab may produce the most sweetest sound of " bat meet ball” but you should consider this in line with Ash’s public reputation “Ash is like an Eid, once or twice a year”.

[paagla]

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.

[AsifTheManRahman]

Khaiche. Eikhane to dekhi public e manusher kotha niya dissection bisection inspection investigation chalay fatay falaitache!

[dolcevita]

Good hundred but really need to improve his streak rate

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

[dolcevita]

Hope he score another hundred in test : he can wasted as many delivaries as he wants...

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

[Tigers_eye]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
Khaiche. Eikhane to dekhi public e manusher kotha niya dissection bisection inspection investigation chalay fatay falaitache!

Getting baptised at BC. The only problem for wasi was

He said to Paglaa, "Shaku naraish naa". That did it.
+++
Dear Latecut,
I love you man. That slip never came. Even Vettori were sweet talking to Imrul about "you have edged your way to 80." And Vettori is an experienced captain. That slip never came even after that. You take what you is given to you. Make runs and make us all happy.

[Purbasha T]

Originally Posted by dolcevita
Good hundred but really need to improve his streak rate

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

ye i know that is some rate to improve on.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by AsifTheManRahman
It's what you do with your lives that matters. We've had too many batsmen who don't capitalize on the chances given to them by the fielding side.

yes...i'll bet tendulkar/ponting/warne score more than half their career runs after a chance.

[wasi90lkv1]

Originally Posted by paagla
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.

all my statements were directed towards different people, not just one person. if i analyze your every single comment, i have a feeling i can expose some of your vulnerabilities. anyway be happy with 240, no wonder why we are the most developed cricket team in the world.

i said imrul did fine, but it was not a match winning one. imrul was a set batsman after 40 overs, he was supposed to slog during that time. other batsmen were new to the crease, but imrul was a set batsman.

[al Furqaan]

anytime someone gets a 100...it should be praised, unless of course it was supremely lucky.

imrul's game wasn't mind-boggling, but it wasn't horrible either. that sweep shot against vettori where he threaded a 10 yard gap in the deep was perhaps the most beautiful shot of the series for us.

i wish we didn't have to denigrate other players in order to glorify ash/aftab. ash certainly didn't look comfortable, and his dismissal was a rather mindless jab at a ball he should have left alone.

[wasi90lkv1]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
anytime someone gets a 100...it should be praised, unless of course it was supremely lucky.

imrul's game wasn't mind-boggling, but it wasn't horrible either. that sweep shot against vettori where he threaded a 10 yard gap in the deep was perhaps the most beautiful shot of the series for us.

i wish we didn't have to denigrate other players in order to glorify ash/aftab. ash certainly didn't look comfortable, and his dismissal was a rather mindless jab at a ball he should have left alone.

ashraful was in better touch in that match, he got out to a brilliant catch. imrul got some fluke edges. i have a feeling vettori did not put slip on purpose because vettori knew imrul was going to be slow.

[One World]

Since when making a ton become so controversial for a BD player, like we do it every other day.

[dolcevita]

Come on kayes score a hundred in test you have as many delivaries you wanted

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

[M.H.Rubel]

Vai polata akta century korlo aita niya ato kotha keno.Kothay prosongsha krbe ta na somalochona.Those who r criticizing him tara ki akbaro vabsen 101 na kore 01 run korle oidin team ar obstha ki hoito?

Posted via BC Mobile Edition