Who allowed Waqar Younis near a microphone?

[zain]

For anyone who watches cricket regularly, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Surely the minimum requirement to be an English commentator should be basic command of the English language?!

Same applies to Aamir Sohail..

Cannot stand hearing them sprout nonsense.

 

[arjwiz]

They are rubbish. The only 2 Pakistani commentators I can stand are Ramiz Raja and Wasim Akram. And they just qualify as commentators.

 

[Melbourne Red]

Ramiz Raja isn't bad.

Wasim Akram has interesting things to say when he's being interviewed but lacks the polish as an English speaker to be a proper commentator.

Waqar should buy himself a nice rural villa and concentrate on writing his memoirs... in Urdu.

 

[zain]

Agreed..
Don't mind Ramiz Raja at all

Akram is brilliant when he's giving insight into bowling. Even though his command of the English language isn't great, at least he's interesting and you learn something new about fast bowling everytime you hear him speak..

Aamir Sohail and Waqar Younis on the other hand.....oh dear.

 

[rotherham_red]

Ramiz Raja is clueless, has a good command of English though.

I particularly loved it when he warned Pak against over-using Aamer, because he remembered a young pacer by the name of Muhammad Zahid who was probably the fastest bowler Pakistan ever produced, comfortably faster than Shoaib (trust me, he was, look for his vid against Lara, purportedly the fastest over ever bowled). Unfortunately, he was over-used on a tour to New Zealand and had contracted chronic back problems ever since, and never featured for Pakistan since. The captain of that ill-fated tour? One Ramiz Raja

Its a shame though, as we probably could have witnessed the fast bowling career that Shoaib should have had, as by all accounts, Zahid hads the pace, the bounce, and most importantly, the control over his line and length that Shoaib never had.

Agree on Waqar and Sohail. The English have a good batch of commentators, the best ones though, are definately the Aussies, Dean Jones especially, even if he's a racist!

 

[Spoony]

Ramiz Raja is clueless, has a good command of English though.

I particularly loved it when he warned Pak against over-using Aamer, because he remembered a young pacer by the name of Muhammad Zahid who was probably the fastest bowler Pakistan ever produced, comfortably faster than Shoaib (trust me, he was, look for his vid against Lara, purportedly the fastest over ever bowled). Unfortunately, he was over-used on a tour to New Zealand and had contracted chronic back problems ever since, and never featured for Pakistan since. The captain of that ill-fated tour? One Ramiz Raja

Its a shame though, as we probably could have witnessed the fast bowling career that Shoaib should have had, as by all accounts, Zahid hads the pace, the bounce, and most importantly, the control over his line and length that Shoaib never had.

Agree on Waqar and Sohail. The English have a good batch of commentators, the best ones though, are definately the Aussies, Dean Jones especially, even if he's a racist!

how good was this bloke? I recall Akram saying during commentary something about a Pakistani fast bowler who bowled half a yard quicket than Akhtar.

And I think you're doing Akhtar a disservice - the only thing that let him down was his off field antics - but on the pitch he was pure box office. I think his S/R was in the early 40s and his average was in the low 20s. So, he clearly was a fantastic bowler.

As for Ramiz Raja, he's a rubbish commentator.

 

[rotherham_red]

I never really got to see much of him live, as he unfortunately only played fleetingly for Pakistan, but what I have been told by people whose knowledge of the game I respect, he was much quicker than Akhtar, and probably had the best physique of any fast bowler around at the time. What eff'd him up, was a crap captain over-using him on a lifeless pitch, which caused him to bend his back much more than normal, in order to get his nominal pace. Also, in every feature on him, some of the world's and Pakistan's greatest like Wasim, Waqar, Lara, Aqib Javed have attested to his talent, and even Shoaib himself, have stated that Zahid was comfortably faster. Lara even said that one over which Zahid bowled to him in the 1996 World Series, was the fastest over he had ever faced by any bowler.

I've seen Akhtar for all of his career, trust me when I say this - Akhtar is a shit bowler, and a waste of a prodigious talent. He was a good prospect during 1997-1999, but he never progressed. He never learned to improve his line and length, and he was continually given chance after chance to do so. If you want a perfect proof of this, look at his performance against India in 2003. He was bowling at his fastest then, yet what he was serving up was long-hops which Sachin and co. simply lapped up.
Also, I wouldnt take much credence in his stats. He had a very good start to his international career, but he has regressed since. His Average in 99', for example, was in the high 18s, to low 19 range. I dont doubt that he was, and still is a box-office entertainer, but he could have been so much better. We should be talking of him with the likes of Lillee, Thompson, Holding, Roberts, Khan, Ambrose - but we cant simply because of his own selfish character. When people remember him they'll say "He bowled 100mph twice you know" and not to reminisce over any legendary performances.

I'd rate Brett Lee ahead of Akhtar, and I have done since 2001. Akhtar is a shocking waste of talent...

 

[vijay]

They are rubbish. The only 2 Pakistani commentators I can stand are Ramiz Raja and Wasim Akram. And they just qualify as commentators.

Ramiz Raza is crap.

Akram is always brilliant, on the technical side of the game he always has something to say but not a good anchor.

The worst excricketer-commentator ever is Srikanth followed by Sidhu.

 

[rotherham_red]

Reckon Anil Kumble's a bit shit aswell tbh, I dont think he's ever been enthusiastic his whole life...

 

[Spoony]

I never really got to see much of him live, as he unfortunately only played fleetingly for Pakistan, but what I have been told by people whose knowledge of the game I respect, he was much quicker than Akhtar, and probably had the best physique of any fast bowler around at the time. What eff'd him up, was a crap captain over-using him on a lifeless pitch, which caused him to bend his back much more than normal, in order to get his nominal pace. Also, in every feature on him, some of the world's and Pakistan's greatest like Wasim, Waqar, Lara, Aqib Javed have attested to his talent, and even Shoaib himself, have stated that Zahid was comfortably faster. Lara even said that one over which Zahid bowled to him in the 1996 World Series, was the fastest over he had ever faced by any bowler.

I've seen Akhtar for all of his career, trust me when I say this - Akhtar is a shit bowler, and a waste of a prodigious talent. He was a good prospect during 1997-1999, but he never progressed. He never learned to improve his line and length, and he was continually given chance after chance to do so. If you want a perfect proof of this, look at his performance against India in 2003. He was bowling at his fastest then, yet what he was serving up was long-hops which Sachin and co. simply lapped up.
Also, I wouldnt take much credence in his stats. He had a very good start to his international career, but he has regressed since. His Average in 99', for example, was in the high 18s, to low 19 range. I dont doubt that he was, and still is a box-office entertainer, but he could have been so much better. We should be talking of him with the likes of Lillee, Thompson, Holding, Roberts, Khan, Ambrose - but we cant simply because of his own selfish character. When people remember him they'll say "He bowled 100mph twice you know" and not to reminisce over any legendary performances.

I'd rate Brett Lee ahead of Akhtar, and I have done since 2001. Akhtar is a shocking waste of talent...

Lee averages over 30 his strike rate must be in the high 50s. Akhtar averages around 24 and his strike rate is in the 40s. They're not even comparable. Anything below a 50 S/R is phenomenal for a bowler. Brett Lee has never been a great bowler, when he first started his career he looked to have amazing potential - but sadly he never realised it. His stats are proof of that - just because he's a nice chap doesn't change that fact. The reason why Shoaib a waste of talent is because he's missed a lot of games due to his off field antics - but on pitch as his stats prove, he was as good as anyone. Trust me, I've seen the very best. Lee was not half the bowler Akhtar was. And that's a fact really. He could've and should've played more cricket and only has himself to blame for having such a stop-start career.

 

[Spoony]

I never really got to see much of him live, as he unfortunately only played fleetingly for Pakistan, but what I have been told by people whose knowledge of the game I respect, he was much quicker than Akhtar, and probably had the best physique of any fast bowler around at the time. What eff'd him up, was a crap captain over-using him on a lifeless pitch, which caused him to bend his back much more than normal, in order to get his nominal pace. Also, in every feature on him, some of the world's and Pakistan's greatest like Wasim, Waqar, Lara, Aqib Javed have attested to his talent, and even Shoaib himself, have stated that Zahid was comfortably faster. Lara even said that one over which Zahid bowled to him in the 1996 World Series, was the fastest over he had ever faced by any bowler.

.

I've been reading up on him - Carl Hooper reckons he the faster bowler he's faced and all. Fast bowling in Pakistan is a bit of a phenomenon, mainly because the wickets don't suit that type of bowling.

 

[vijay]

Wasim Akram around 86/87 along with Ian Bishop and Yonus against Newzealand, India and West Indies in 89-90 were fast. But the fastest bowler ever was Jeff Thompson. Unlike this Zahid or Aktar these bowler had the skill the move the ball on either directions in full speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Thomson

Incidents of the ball hitting the boundary or opposite sight screen past the wicket keeper after just one bounce were reported when he was at his fastest between 1972 and 1976, long before boundary ropes were pulled in in the 1990s.[5][6][7] Thomson came to the fore in 1974–75 with 33 wickets in the Ashes series. Modern protective items for batsmen, specifically helmets, were not available at the time, and there was no restrictions on the use of the bouncer. The success of the Australian cricket team with fast bowling prompted an era when pace bowling dominated the game, at the expense of slow bowling.[citation needed]
Contents
[hide]

 

[Spoony]

I've not seen Zahid bowl - but the fastest I've seen is Akhtar, followed by Younis, Bishop, Patterson, Lee and Marshall.

 

[rotherham_red]

Lee averages over 30 his strike rate must be in the high 50s. Akhtar averages around 24 and his strike rate is in the 40s. They're not even comparable. Anything below a 50 S/R is phenomenal for a bowler. Brett Lee has never been a great bowler, when he first started his career he looked to have amazing potential - but sadly he never realised it. His stats are proof of that - just because he's a nice chap doesn't change that fact. The reason why Shoaib a waste of talent is because he's missed a lot of games due to his off field antics - but on pitch as his stats prove, he was as good as anyone. Trust me, I've seen the very best. Lee was not half the bowler Akhtar was. And that's a fact really. He could've and should've played more cricket and only has himself to blame for having such a stop-start career.

I think that is more to do with Ponting over-using him than anything else. Its all in the land of what-ifs, but if Lee was used like Akhtar was used, as a strike bowler, his stats would show up much better than Akhtar's IMHO. Akhtar is/was a 100mph pie-chucker, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[rotherham_red]

Wasim Akram around 86/87 along with Ian Bishop and Yonus against Newzealand, India and West Indies in 89-90 were fast. But the fastest bowler ever was Jeff Thompson. Unlike this Zahid or Aktar these bowler had the skill the move the ball on either directions in full speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Thomson

Incidents of the ball hitting the boundary or opposite sight screen past the wicket keeper after just one bounce were reported when he was at his fastest between 1972 and 1976, long before boundary ropes were pulled in in the 1990s.[5][6][7] Thomson came to the fore in 1974–75 with 33 wickets in the Ashes series. Modern protective items for batsmen, specifically helmets, were not available at the time, and there was no restrictions on the use of the bouncer. The success of the Australian cricket team with fast bowling prompted an era when pace bowling dominated the game, at the expense of slow bowling.[citation needed]
Contents
[hide]

Did you ever watch Zahid in action? The guy was seriously quick, quicker than Wasim, and probably just as fast as Thommo on your list. With regard to his ability to move the ball in both directions, I have been told that Zahid did indeed have the ability to control the movement of the ball, and whats more, could do so at pace. Everyone who saw him in action knew what he was about...

 

[Spoony]

I think that is more to do with Ponting over-using him than anything else. Its all in the land of what-ifs, but if Lee was used like Akhtar was used, as a strike bowler, his stats would show up much better than Akhtar's IMHO. Akhtar is/was a 100mph pie-chucker, nothing more, nothing less.

Which is completely bollocks, to be fair.

 

[amir51]

Waqar has a poor command of English but if you listen to what he has to say, he is quite insightful and is quite knowledgeable. Much better than Ramiz who says stupid things which no one finds funny and usually is berating Pakistan to seem more presentable. Waqar also has good knowledge of our domestic players and gives interesting insight on them.

One guy I can't stand is Mark Nicholas. Tries to be too fancy with his words, get to the point. Furthermore, don't have an orgasm every time an Aussie or Flintoff are on the screen. I am sure he one time used adjectives muscular blonde bombshell for Brett Lee. At that moment, I knew he came out of the closet.

 

[anver]

Ramiz Raza is crap.

Akram is always brilliant, on the technical side of the game he always has something to say but not a good anchor.

The worst excricketer-commentator ever is Srikanth followed by Sidhu.

Agree 100%. But have you heard Arjuna? He was catastrophic. Fortunately he realized it and gave up.

 

[zing]

Waqar has a poor command of English but if you listen to what he has to say, he is quite insightful and is quite knowledgeable. Much better than Ramiz who says stupid things which no one finds funny and usually is berating Pakistan to seem more presentable. Waqar also has good knowledge of our domestic players and gives interesting insight on them.

One guy I can't stand is Mark Nicholas. Tries to be too fancy with his words, get to the point. Furthermore, don't have an orgasm every time an Aussie or Flintoff are on the screen. I am sure he one time used adjectives muscular blonde bombshell for Brett Lee. At that moment, I knew he came out of the closet.

Mark Nicholas sucks up to whoever is paying him at that time, I think. It's rather pathetic.

I think Nasser Hussein is a good commentator.

 

[zain]

How dare anyone say anything against Sidhu?!

Has anyone heard his Sidhuisms!? They come 2nd to none!

"That ball went miles into the air....that could have kissed an airhostess"

"Wickets are like wives - you never know which way they will turn! "

"There is light at the end of the tunnel for India, but it's that of an incoming train which will run them over."

"Deep Dasgupta is as confused as a child is in a topless bar!"

"The way Indian wickets are falling reminds of the cycle stand at Rajendra Talkies in Patiala one falls and everything else falls!"

"The Indian team without Sachin is like giving a Kiss without a Squeeze."

 

[Melbourne Red]

I've always thought that Sidhu was the sort of caricature Indian that Western cricket fans loved but also made people from the subcontinent cringe.

It's a bit unexpected to see that an actual Indian likes him.

 

[zain]

Well, he's certainly a character!

I can't get bored when he's got the microphone in his hand!

 

[Melbourne Red]

Fair enough.

For me, listening to him was like being stuck in a traffic jam while holding in a piss. You just wanted it to end.

 

[gaffs]

From a slow start, this thread has picked up some pace.

 

[Northstand]

Mark Nicholas sucks up to whoever is paying him at that time, I think. It's rather pathetic.

I think Nasser Hussein is a good commentator.

I could listen to Nasser talk cricket all day long. He has plenty of knowledge of the game, and spices his comments with gems of wisdom and humour.

 

[Spoony]

I like Boycott. Henry Blofield used to be quality on the box too - shame he doesn't venture away from radio commentary thesedays. Tony Cozier's another good'en, as are Billy Lawry and Mikey Holding and all(come on, how can you not love his accent?)

 

[Melbourne Red]

I like Boycott. Henry Blofield used to be quality on the box too - shame he doesn't venture away from radio commentary thesedays. Tony Cozier's another good'en, as are Billy Lawry and Mikey Holding and all(come on, how can you not love his accent?)

I liked Blofeld when I was a kid but the older I get the more I hate him. His accent is really grating and his habit of talking everyone else really stands out after a while. And on that note, why are these posh, plummy-accented types always so fecking camp? You could fill a thread with all the accidental homosexual innuendo that comes out in he and Mark Nicholas' commentary.

My favourite West Indian commentator is Ian Bishop. Not only is he extremely articulate, completely unexpectedly too I might add, he's also got a strong knowledge of players and results in every country.

In fact I have to say the West Indian commentary team is by far the best commentary team in the world. The Australian and South African lot are so one-eyed it quickly becomes infuriating. I'm almost certain that none of them watch cricket outside their own country. The West Indians, on the other hand, have a working knowledge of every team and remain admirably impartial throughout.

 

[zain]

If anyone wants to fall asleep, or depress yourself, or make perhaps the most entertaining cricket matches absolute borefests..

Watch any match with Richie Benaud commentating!

 

[Melbourne Red]

Richie's been getting progressively worse over the last five years.

He was great in the old days though.

 

[anver]

I like Boycott. Henry Blofield used to be quality on the box too - shame he doesn't venture away from radio commentary thesedays. Tony Cozier's another good'en, as are Billy Lawry and Mikey Holding and all(come on, how can you not love his accent?)

The guy is biased against a certain team. He tries his best to undermine that team. Even went to the extent of insinuating that the captain of that side had accepted a sop. Only insinuated. The player concerned was highly respected, and came off unscathed. This happened during the height of the match fixing scandal. Holding escaped a law suit because he had stopped short of making the issue obvious.

 

[Melbourne Red]

It's alright mate, you can stop being so cryptic and name the fella.

I'm sure he won't press charges.

If you're talking about Wasim Akram then I'd point out that it seems to be fairly well accepted on places like the Pakpassion forum that he was fairly heavily involved and only got off because of his influence.

 

[anver]

It was Marvan Atapattu. US $25,000 were found in the safe of the hotel room in Kandy Sri-Lanka, which Marvan had occupied a few days earlier. When Marvan was asked whether it was his money, he had denied any knowledge of it. The hotel confirmed that Marvan had not made use of the safe. But this guy kept on ranting while on commentary, that it was impossible for an occupant not to make use of the safe. Was it possible that the hotel was trying to cover up because they did not want a scandal involving the captain of their country?

I think the ICC anti -corruption made inquiries and found no charge against Marvan.

 

[Spoony]

The guy is biased against a certain team. He tries his best to undermine that team. Even went to the extent of insinuating that the captain of that side had accepted a sop. Only insinuated. The player concerned was highly respected, and came off unscathed. This happened during the height of the match fixing scandal. Holding escaped a law suit because he had stopped short of making the issue obvious.

Why would he be anti-Lanka, though?

I liked Blofeld when I was a kid but the older I get the more I hate him. His accent is really grating and his habit of talking everyone else really stands out after a while. And on that note, why are these posh, plummy-accented types always so fecking camp? You could fill a thread with all the accidental homosexual innuendo that comes out in he and Mark Nicholas' commentary.

My favourite West Indian commentator is Ian Bishop. Not only is he extremely articulate, completely unexpectedly too I might add, he's also got a strong knowledge of players and results in every country.

In fact I have to say the West Indian commentary team is by far the best commentary team in the world. The Australian and South African lot are so one-eyed it quickly becomes infuriating. I'm almost certain that none of them watch cricket outside their own country. The West Indians, on the other hand, have a working knowledge of every team and remain admirably impartial throughout.

Yeah, they do seem very camp. Blofeld's just a stereo-typical camp upper middle class English person. I think his commentary suits radio, to be honest. But I've always liked him. As for Bishop, he is good, and you're probably right, they might no have the best team anymore, but they've got the best commentators. There's a Windian female commentator and she's very good too. South African commentators are the worst - they're so bloody biased. The accent doesn't help and all.

 

[anver]

Why would he be anti-Lanka, though?

Yeah, they do seem very camp. Blofeld's just a stereo-typical camp upper middle class English person. I think his commentary suits radio, to be honest. But I've always liked him. As for Bishop, he is good, and you're probably right, they might no have the best team anymore, but they've got the best commentators. There's a Windian female commentator and she's very good too. South African commentators are the worst - they're so bloody biased. The accent doesn't help and all.

Beats me. Maybe he is not anti. just trying to show how he was some kind of an expert in sniffing out match fixing.

You are being modest when you say they are biased. Bishop is, yes, very good. I like Ravi Shastri and Harsha Bhogle, too, although sometimes they go off their rockers when talking of Indian players.

I liked Boycott. Funny fooker. And Lloyd, too.