Probable Side for charity match now

[Afridi_Fan]

1.Imran Farhat.

2.Shoaib Malik.

3.Younis Khan.

4.Inzimam-Ul-Haq.

5.Mohammad Yousaf.

6.Shahid Afridi.

7.Abdul Razzaq.

8.Kamran Akmal.

9.Umer Gul.

10.Shahid Nazir.

11.Danish Kaneria.

[safehands46]

no woolmer and abbas.

[Afridi_Fan]

They will carry the drinks :P

[TaZ]

Lets hope no one else gets injured or Waqar may have to bowl

[Re-Verse]

Waqar bowling would not be a bad thing....His record in England is good....and Im sure he bowls while coaching...

Yes I know I am clutching at straws

[Farah]

Waqar bowling would not be a bad thing....His record in England is good....and Im sure he bowls while coaching...

Yes I know I am clutching at straws

His recd is even better at Lords

Waqar Younis Pakistan
Ovs > 108
Wkts > 21
Runs >362
Best > 5/91
Avg > 21.29

The only Pak bowler in: Top Bowlers - All Time - By Bowling Average (Minimum 3 Matches and 10 Wickets) at Lords.

GD Mcgrath leads the list at Lords

McGrath, G D* Australia
Wkts > 26
Best > 8/38
Avg >11.50 :O :)

[W63L35]

His recd is even better at Lords

Waqar Younis Pakistan
Ovs > 108
Wkts > 21
Runs >362
Best > 5/91
Avg > 21.29

The only Pak bowler in: Top Bowlers - All Time - By Bowling Average (Minimum 3 Matches and 10 Wickets) at Lords.

GD Mcgrath leads the list at Lords

McGrath, G D* Australia
Wkts > 26
Best > 8/38
Avg >11.50 :O :)

I don't know where you looked but Waqar's record at Lords is;

matches: 3 Runs: 108 Runs: 362 Wickets: 17 Ave: 21.29

He took 17 test wickets at Lords - not 21 wickets at Lords.

Also, McGrath is NOT #1 wicket taker at Lords.....he is #18 on the list. Botham is #1 with 69 test wickets at Lords.
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/BY_GROUND/10/TESTS/MOST_WKTS.html

[Farah]

I don't know where you looked but Waqar's record at Lords is;

matches: 3 Runs: 108 Runs: 362 Wickets: 17 Ave: 21.29

He took 17 test wickets at Lords - not 21 wickets at Lords.

Also, McGrath is NOT #1 wicket taker at Lords.....he is #18 on the list. Botham is #1 with 69 test wickets at Lords.
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/BY_GROUND/10/TESTS/MOST_WKTS.html


Read my post again esp this bit in the post > Top Bowlers - All Time - By Bowling Average (Minimum 3 Matches and 10 Wickets) at Lords. Your right I think when editing the stats line I kept 21 his mdns by accident as his wkts also he did hav 17 my apologies.

Waqar Younis Pakistan 108 21 362 17 1 0 5/91 21.29 38.12

Mcgrath is the no.1 wkt taker though read the highlighted bit, his avge is the lowest avg > Top Bowlers - All Time - By Bowling Average

[Farah]

Botham or any english bowler wud hav most wkts at Lords, they get to play & bowl more ovs on their home grounds, a foriegner 2 hav the mst wkts wudve been a shock. Botham has bowled 532.2 ovs at Lords, Mcgrath jst 118.4 with 26 wkts@11.50.

Criteria was >

Top Bowlers - All Time - By Bowling Average (Minimum 3 Matches and 10 Wickets)

[W63L35]

Read my post again esp this bit in the post > Top Bowlers - All Time - By Bowling Average (Minimum 3 Matches and 10 Wickets) at Lords. Your right I think when editing the stats line I kept 21 his mdns by accident as his wkts also he did hav 17 my apologies.

Waqar Younis Pakistan 108 21 362 17 1 0 5/91 21.29 38.12

Mcgrath is the no.1 wkt taker though read the highlighted bit, his avge is the lowest avg > Top Bowlers - All Time - By Bowling Average

Hate to be picky but when you say somebody is "no.1 wkt taker" - that means he has taken HIGHEST NUMBER of wickets. Where did in you post mention that your criterian is only "visiting bowlers"! Even then, Hadlee has taken MORE wickets at Lords than McGrath!

[W63L35]

Botham or any english bowler wud hav most wkts at Lords, they get to play & bowl more ovs on their home grounds, a foriegner 2 hav the mst wkts wudve been a shock. Botham has bowled 532.2 ovs at Lords, Mcgrath jst 118.4 with 26 wkts@11.50.

Criteria was >

Top Bowlers - All Time - By Bowling Average (Minimum 3 Matches and 10 Wickets)

Where does it say that you were excluding "HOME" bowlers???

[Farah]

W63L35 read the whole sentence theres a comma, u hav missed the bit Ive said he is the no1 wicket taker by avg.
Hadlee, R J New Zealand 218.4 54 553 26 3 0 6/80 21.27

Hadlee avgs 21.27 thats almst double Mcgrath avg he is lower in the
list, also the includes English bowlers your confusing yourself and me now :(

Mcgrath does is no1 on list by the criteria given >

http://i6.tinypic.com/1zfh6s5.jpg

[W63L35]

W63L35 read the whole sentence theres a comma, u hav missed the bit Ive said he is the no1 wicket taker by avg.
Hadlee, R J New Zealand 218.4 54 553 26 3 0 6/80 21.27

Hadlee avgs 21.27 thats almst double Mcgrath avg he is lower in the
list, also the includes English bowlers your confusing yourself and me now :(

Mcgrath does is no1 on list by the criteria given >



Sorry to confuse you ......after your 3rd explainantion....I totally understand your comment now........you are saying that...

McGrath is no.1 wicket taker by average - even though he has NOT the no.1 wicket taker because Hadlee (26) and Botham (69) has taken more than him! Right???? :19:

[Farah]

Sorry to confuse you ......after your 3rd explainantion....I totally understand your comment now........you are saying that...

McGrath is no.1 wicket taker by average - even though he has NOT the no.1 wicket taker because Hadlee (26) and Botham (69) has taken more than him! Right???? :19:

Mcgrath is the no.1 wkt taker by avg that was the criteria :)

Your very wrong abt Hadlee you keep saying he has tkn more wkts than Mcgrath how so? Hadlee/Mcgrath both on 26 :20: Hadlee took
100 ovs more to get that mark of 26.

Mcgrath > 118.4 26 wkts
Hadlee > 218.4 26 wkts

Hadlees strike rate > 50.46
Mcgrath strike rate > 27.38 :O

The criteria Botham wud be top in is Top Bowlers - All Time - By Aggregate Wickets which is not the criteria I was discussing. Mcgrath & Hadlee r only non eng bowlers in the agg'ate wkts top 20 column at Lords, but then wudnt u expect eng bowlers to dominate the mst wkts column?