Will Bob woolmer make Sami bowl 1st change?

[Amjid Javed]

With s.africa Bob always made fastest bowler in the side Allan donald bowl 1st change due to fact he didnt like bowling with new ball. Since hes taken over with pakistans he made akthar bowl 1st change and also shorten his run up. so will bob do same with sami?

sami at times has been very wayward with the new ball. Also to consider is fact that sami and rana like to attack with new ball and can go for alot off runs espically in Rana` case....!

so if rao or s nazir played.. would they be given new ball alongside Rana?

[Sheikh_Ji]

well i'd like to see sami coming first change.
Rana and Rao can move the new ball alot more than Sami can.....

[Amjid Javed]

Sami can be very wayward early on and rao seems to bowl better than sami 1st up.

[GamBiTT]

AJ: correction .. BW advised Shoaib to shorten his run-up which ***** still hasn't been willing to listen to!.

Sami will most likely be coming in first chance when we have four pacers playing: Sami, Rana, Rao/Nazir, Razzaq in the playing XI

He will however bowl with the new ball if the attack comprises of only three pacers.

[the true passionist]

well sami has shown good control in the last match even after bowling very long spells....therefore a five over spell should not bother him....but if he goes for runs the change can be made....

But on the other hind...Bob might want to make it a bit difficult for Sehwag by presenting him a bowler that Sehwag has not faced..

[Amjid Javed]

shewags ODI record is poor v Pakistan in comparison to his test record.

in tests he averages 100+ in odis just above 20.

ganguly and sachin are the two who have good odi averages v pakistan!

[GamBiTT]

If India really played on their strengths and player abilities, their batting lineup should be:

Yuvraj (Can murder fast bowilng in a conventional manner, but clueless against spin)
Sehwag (No need to explain)
Tendulkar (Better to protect him from the new ball)
Dravid (Run accumulator and stabilizer)
Ganguly (Atleast used to be a good player of spin)
Mohd. Kaif (Only for rear-guard action if needed)
..
..
..

[suhaib]

well bob was the man who destroyed donald.

[GamBiTT]

Originally Posted by suhaibonline well bob was the man who destroyed donald.

This shows me how knowledgeable your are about cricket my friend! Real genius I tell ya! It can never be repressed! Always rises from the depths!

[cricketcrazy]

Originally Posted by GamBiTT Originally Posted by suhaibonline well bob was the man who destroyed donald. This shows me how knowledgeable your are about cricket my friend! Real genius I tell ya! It can never be repressed! Always rises from the depths!

How I think so he was one the best bowler in cricket when he retired ?

[pakistani pride]

sami as first change shud be fine

rao and rana are good in odi with new ball

[Hash]

well bob was the man who destroyed donald.

Bob is also the cause of global warming
Bob is also the cause of corruption
Bob is also the cause of illiteracy
Bob is also the cause of the car accident that happened down my road the other day, even though he was in India at the time.
Bob is also etc etc etc

[Hash]

posted twice accidently......delete this plz

[Nawazb]

sami should open with rana and then s nazir should come on

[Sharif]

Originally Posted by Hash well bob was the man who destroyed donald. Bob is also the cause of global warming Bob is also the cause of corruption Bob is also the cause of illiteracy Bob is also the cause of the car accident that happened down my road the other day, even though he was in India at the time. Bob is also etc etc etc

funny but true.

[zulfiqar]

Originally Posted by Hash well bob was the man who destroyed donald. Bob is also the cause of global warming Bob is also the cause of corruption Bob is also the cause of illiteracy Bob is also the cause of the car accident that happened down my road the other day, even though he was in India at the time. Bob is also etc etc etc

Laugh all you want but all this is true!

[Officer Barbrady]

How so? How did he destroy Donald? He was a leading fast bowler in the world when Woolmer was coach. Is that destroying a bowler??

Sami first change might be a good idea. The other two are more likely to get some swung and Sami generally doesn't seem to enjoy bowling with a new ball.

Keep laughing hash but Bob did destroy Donald. He is now trying to destroy Shoaib...kudos to shoaib for ticking to his guns and not backing down in the face of such a shameless coach!

its more than just about speed. just because donald and shoaib happened to be the fastest bowlers on their teams doesnt mean bob will always make the fastest bowler bowl first change. that is a very simplistic view of things. there are many other factors that need to be considered. I think Sami and Rana will open with the new ball and Nazir will operate with the older ball.

[Saqlain_doosra]

Smai should always be first change. Once he can be confident of bowling with new then put him on

[Hash]

plato- just 'how' did he destroy Donald exactly? Evidence please!

[Officer Barbrady]

Originally Posted by Plato Keep laughing hash but Bob did destroy Donald. He is now trying to destroy Shoaib...kudos to shoaib for ticking to his guns and not backing down in the face of such a shameless coach!

Can you explain that please? How did he destroy Donald when he was one of the most successful (if not the most) bowler in world cricket under him?

Originally Posted by Saqlain_doosra Smai should always be first change. Once he can be confident of bowling with new then put him on

SD I think Sami has been bowling well with the new ball in the ODI's, praticularly against the indians.

[Hash]

marooned- I somehow doubt we are going to get a response!

I think they might have just been sarcastic though!

[Officer Barbrady]

Originally Posted by appeal till you squeal Originally Posted by Saqlain_doosra Smai should always be first change. Once he can be confident of bowling with new then put him on SD I think Sami has been bowling well with the new ball in the ODI's, praticularly against the indians.

Lets see ...Sami seems to bowl with more control with a slightly older ball while Rana/Rao/Nazir are new ball bowlers (as we saw in Australia) who rely on swing which is mostly available with a new ball. I think Sami could do a good job coming in as first change.

Originally Posted by Marooned Originally Posted by Plato Keep laughing hash but Bob did destroy Donald. He is now trying to destroy Shoaib...kudos to shoaib for ticking to his guns and not backing down in the face of such a shameless coach! Can you explain that please? How did he destroy Donald when he was one of the most successful (if not the most) bowler in world cricket under him?

Donald was a great bowler in his own right. However, his downfall was swift and due to getting used to the negative mindset that Bob was propagating to him. Over time, he became completely ineffective!

[Hash]

can you give us some evidence please (that Donald became ineffective under Woolmer)? I'm guessing you can't but please try.

Originally Posted by Plato Donald was a great bowler in his own right. However, his downfall was swift and due to getting used to the negative mindset that Bob was propagating to him. Over time, he became completely ineffective!

translation..."Bob is an expert at the art of brain washing...talk to him at your own risk!" 2 2

[Officer Barbrady]

Originally Posted by Plato Donald was a great bowler in his own right. However, his downfall was swift and due to getting used to the negative mindset that Bob was propagating to him. Over time, he became completely ineffective!

How so? Donald was very very successful while Woolmer was in charge. Please explain !

[Hash]

exactly marooned!

He was very successful indeed, so I really cannot understand what these people are saying!

[Officer Barbrady]

Hash, suni sunaiye batain...

[Hash]

I have just proved them wrong by a simple cricinfo stat search

During the period that Bob Woolmer was the coach of SA, Alan Donald played 40 games, took 202 wickets (best 8/71), had an average of 20.66 (compared to his overall career average of 22.25) and a strike rate of 42.4 (compared to an overall career strike rate of 47!).

Therefore you can quite clearly see that he was actually more successful under Woolmer than he was at any other time in his career! Anyone who says Woolmer ruined Donald is either a complete idiot or simply made it up to try and back up a pathetic and childish hatred of the man for no reason!

I have a problem with this comment for a completely different reason. why should a coach be criticized for an individual's performance? isnt the performance of the team that ultimately matters? and we have all seen how that of SA has gone down consistently ever since BW left!

[Hash]

ALAN DONALD:


overall career

72 matches
2586.3 overs
7344 runs
330 wickets
8/71 (best bowling in innings)
12/139 (bets bowling in match)
22.25 average
2.83 economy
47.0 strike rate
20 five wicket hauls and 10 ten wicket hauls


under Woolmer

40 matches
1428 overs
4174 runs
202 wickets
8/71 (best bowling in an innings)
11/113 (best bowling in a match)
20.66 average
2.92 economy (slightly higher than his overall career economy rate which suggests that, if anything, he was attacking more NOT bowling negatively as someone said)
42.4 strike rate
14 five wicket hauls and 1 ten wicket haul


Clearly better under Woolmer!

[Hash]

appeal til you squeal- I just don't like people making things up and then running away and hiding when the FACTS are shown to them.

But i do agree with what you say above.

Hash isnt backing down here is he!!!!!!!! ;)+

Ok Hash....statistically, I cant argue with you. But stats aren't everything! There was a difference in approach which you could only see if you actually watched the matches. All this stats rubbish is for Indians!

[Hash]

stats are not everything plato but one thing which you can say for 100% certain is that they DON'T TELL LIES!

CLEARLY under Woolmer, Donald has a better record than he did in his overall career! So whatever it was that Woolmer was telling him to do, it was clearly working!

[Officer Barbrady]

The stats are not surprising since Donald and Pollock were at their best under Woolmer. There is simply no doubt about that.

Donald retired when he did because of age and injuries. He was 37! No one ruined his career.

They do tell lies or at the very least distort the picture!

Watch Donald before Woolmer and during Woolmer's reign....

Donald was all aggression, excitement before Woolmer. The fact that he got mor wickets doesn't necessarily mean he was more attacking during Woolmer's reign..

Originally Posted by Plato They do tell lies or at the very least distort the picture! Watch Donald before Woolmer and during Woolmer's reign.... Donald was all aggression, excitement before Woolmer. The fact that he got mor wickets doesn't necessarily mean he was more attacking during Woolmer's reign..

2 this is quite funny!

I think you guys need to watch a bit of cricket rather than go to stats guru for all ur answers....

[Officer Barbrady]

Originally Posted by Plato They do tell lies or at the very least distort the picture! Watch Donald before Woolmer and during Woolmer's reign.... Donald was all aggression, excitement before Woolmer. The fact that he got mor wickets doesn't necessarily mean he was more attacking during Woolmer's reign..

You have no facts and no argument. All you could come up with is Donald was more agressive and excited before Woolmer! I m sorry but...

The fact that Donald was extremely successful, regarded as one of the top three fast bowlers and responsible for many memorable test match wins under Woolmer seems to mean nothing to you.

Simply because he looked more aggressive before Woolmer (to you that is).

Originally Posted by Plato I think you guys need to watch a bit of cricket rather than go to stats guru for all ur answers....

but Plato, when it comes to Shoaib you trust in the cricket ratings which are based entirely on stats. and here you are saying stats dont mean anything? ?

[Salman]

Back to the subject, Sami always struggled when he was first change after Shoaib, this was due to the fact that the batsmen got used to the pace off the wicket from Shoaibs opening bursts... making it easier to counter a touch slower attack from Sami...

This time as Sami is our quickest, we should use him as a first change bowler for a few of the ODI's.... and i bet he won't even sulk when told he's not opening....

Originally Posted by appeal till you squeal Originally Posted by Plato I think you guys need to watch a bit of cricket rather than go to stats guru for all ur answers.... but Plato, when it comes to Shoaib you trust in the cricket ratings which are based entirely on stats. and here you are saying stats dont mean anything? ?

When did I ever mention shoaib's stats?? ?

Originally Posted by Plato When did I ever mention shoaib's stats?? ?

well not you, but Hoodis did. and I recall you called it an "excellent post". you have to admit there is a double standard here!

Originally Posted by Marooned Originally Posted by Plato They do tell lies or at the very least distort the picture! Watch Donald before Woolmer and during Woolmer's reign.... Donald was all aggression, excitement before Woolmer. The fact that he got mor wickets doesn't necessarily mean he was more attacking during Woolmer's reign.. You have no facts and no argument. All you could come up with is Donald was more agressive and excited before Woolmer! I m sorry but... The fact that Donald was extremely successful, regarded as one of the top three fast bowlers and responsible for many memorable test match wins under Woolmer seems to mean nothing to you. Simply because he looked more aggressive before Woolmer (to you that is).

You really wanna get into stats?

Firstly, Donald capitalised on the decline in batting standards during Woolmer's reign. His most impressivce record is Vs the Windies post 1994. Do you really think he would have returned those figures when Haynes and co were there?

His only 10-fer in a match during Bob's reign is against the might of the zimbabweans!

His record suffered AFTER Bob left too. When we say Woolmer destroyed Donald then we are surely talking abut the after effects of Woolmer. Donald became RELATIVELY ineffective post bob....

Dunno bout u, but I prefered the fiery, electric Donald compared to the metronomic bowler he became under Woolmer. Personal choice I guess..

let me get this right...

1 - not only is woolmer responsible for Donald's "poor bowling while getting more wickets", he is also responsible for the overall decline in batting form of world cricketers? 2 (that was a joke by the way, please dont get worked up)

2 - on a more serious note, we should make sure woolmer doesnt leave Pakistan's coaching job. who knows what after effects that could have on our players!!!

[Officer Barbrady]

You really wanna get into stats? Firstly, Donald capitalised on the decline in batting standards during Woolmer's reign. His most impressivce record is Vs the Windies post 1994. Do you really think he would have returned those figures when Haynes and co were there? His only 10-fer in a match during Bob's reign is against the might of the zimbabweans!

If anything batting standards have improved in the past ten years! Pitches have become batting friendly and if anything that should harm his record rather than help it! If Haynes had retired there is nothing Bob or Donald could do about that even though Lara arrived on the scene around that time.

And forget batting standards. Compare him with the other bowlers of his time and tell me where he stands. If he remains in the top 3 (which he will) I don't think you can have any reason to complain.

His record suffered AFTER Bob left too. When we say Woolmer destroyed Donald then we are surely talking abut the after effects of Woolmer. Donald became RELATIVELY ineffective post bob.... Dunno bout u, but I prefered the fiery, electric Donald compared to the metronomic bowler he became under Woolmer. Personal choice I guess..

AFTER Bob left? Again very strange argument. Boy he was 34 by the time Bob left. Soon after age took it's toll and he very naturally lost pace! He struggled in 2002-3 at the age of 36-37 because of a loss of pace (something that happens to all fast bowlers whether BW is coach or not)and not because Bob Woolmer had been his coach.

Donald was one of the most aggressive fast bowlers around in the mid 90s to late 90s. I wonder what makes you think he was 'metronomic'.

As for the ten wicket stat :

What about a strike rate of 42, an average of 20 and 202 wickets in 40 matches with 14 5-fors? "Metronomic" no doubt!



I can understand if you for some reasons you don't consider BW a good coach. But at least find some better arguments than this!

[Hash]

sorry this plato guy is just making me crack up

[alghazzali]

"He was less agressive under BW", Yeh i know wot u mean, i really do sympathise with Platos arguments. The fact is that b4 Woolmer he used 2 approach the crease with a mean face and during woolmer he smiled. Spot on Plato, stats cant tell u that.

GROW UP!!

[Hash]

well plato.....his economy rate under Woolmer was slightly higher than his overall career which, if anything, suggests that he was attacking more, not defending.

OK fine, he might have smiled more under Woolmer but that was because he was getting wickets!

[Love and Theft]

wherever sami bowls, i just hope he doesn't resume normal service.

thats all i hope

[Majid Khan]

It makes sense to have Sami on at first change.. because lets face it, against players like Sehwag and Tendulkar on these flat oven baked pitches in the sub continent, its almost guaranteed that the opening bowlers will go at around 6-7 runs per over in the first 15 overs...

It makes little difference who the opening bowler are or what their line and length is like, because reality is that even bowlers like McGrath and Pollock have been taken to the cleaners on these wickets against these sort of ultra attacking batsmen.. players like Sehwag and Tendulkar are good enough to even despatch good deliveries to the boundary and will try to do so to gain the initiative in the first 10-15 overs..

So basically, the only role a one-day bowler has thesedays in the first 15 overs.. is to CONTAIN, to try and keep the runs down.

That role would suit the likes of Razzak and Rana much more than a Sami.. and given that our bowling attack is all intended to contain , it might be wise to keep Sami as the ace up our sleeve.. and use him to attack once he comes on at first change, and look to make the breakthrough..

He might and probably will still get whacked around, but at least this way you have someone to turn to.. after Razzak and Rana get taken apart.. ! the last thing we need is Sami getting hit out of the attack and then having to bring on a naturally defensive bowler like Razzak to replace him..

Reminds me of that line from Kamran Abbasi's article some time ago about Pakistan's bowling in one-day cricket : "Survive the rocket launchers and then be rewarded with pie chuckers".

[Ayubi]

Originally Posted by Marooned You really wanna get into stats? Firstly, Donald capitalised on the decline in batting standards during Woolmer's reign. His most impressivce record is Vs the Windies post 1994. Do you really think he would have returned those figures when Haynes and co were there? His only 10-fer in a match during Bob's reign is against the might of the zimbabweans! If anything batting standards have improved in the past ten years! Pitches have become batting friendly and if anything that should harm his record rather than help it! If Haynes had retired there is nothing Bob or Donald could do about that even though Lara arrived on the scene around that time. And forget batting standards. Compare him with the other bowlers of his time and tell me where he stands. If he remains in the top 3 (which he will) I don't think you can have any reason to complain. His record suffered AFTER Bob left too. When we say Woolmer destroyed Donald then we are surely talking abut the after effects of Woolmer. Donald became RELATIVELY ineffective post bob.... Dunno bout u, but I prefered the fiery, electric Donald compared to the metronomic bowler he became under Woolmer. Personal choice I guess.. AFTER Bob left? Again very strange argument. Boy he was 34 by the time Bob left. Soon after age took it's toll and he very naturally lost pace! He struggled in 2002-3 at the age of 36-37 because of a loss of pace (something that happens to all fast bowlers whether BW is coach or not)and not because Bob Woolmer had been his coach. Donald was one of the most aggressive fast bowlers around in the mid 90s to late 90s. I wonder what makes you think he was 'metronomic'. As for the ten wicket stat : What about a strike rate of 42, an average of 20 and 202 wickets in 40 matches with 14 5-fors? "Metronomic" no doubt! I can understand if you for some reasons you don't consider BW a good coach. But at least find some better arguments than this!

Marooned, if I remember correctly I had a discussion with you a while back where you said that despite what the stats suggest, Waqar cannot be considered one of the greatest bowlers ever. Your point being, stats don't always paint the correct picture.
I really don't know whether Woolmer destroyed or boosted Donald's career but it would be interesting to know the wickets he got under Woolmer according to batting order & how important each wicket was

[zorawar]

Ridiculous comment about Bob destroying Donald...

Also crediting Bob with Donald's awesome figures is also not exactly right... Bob took over when Donald was getting to his best and left before his last few years when he declined...

All you can say is Bob did not have a bad effect on Donald's performance and he kept performing at a high level during his tenure.

[Officer Barbrady]

Originally Posted by Ayubi Marooned, if I remember correctly I had a discussion with you a while back where you said that despite what the stats suggest, Waqar cannot be considered one of the greatest bowlers ever. Your point being, stats don't always paint the correct picture.

You have got it slightly wrong, my point was that you cannot simply quote his stats of a 5 year period (as was done in that thread) and say that Waqar was the greatest fast bowler EVER.

In Donald's case 1) I have seen many of the matches that he played under BW. 2) I have seen him play a very crucial role in the victories that South Africa achieved. 3) I believe (without looking at stats) that he was one of the three best fast bowlers at the time. 4) We are talking about his time under Bob Woolmer and trying to prove that he wasn't destroyed by BW (as alleged by another poster) not calling him the greatest bowler ever!

I really don't know whether Woolmer destroyed or boosted Donald's career but it would be interesting to know the wickets he got under Woolmer according to batting order & how important each wicket was

I agree and here's a list of his averages against each team and the players he got out most time in that period:
v Australia 5 208.4 539 23 6/59 9/133 23.43 2.58 54.4 2 0
v England 13 506.4 1560 64 6/88 8/115 24.37 3.07 47.5 6 0
v India 5 182.4 460 30 5/40 9/54 15.33 2.51 36.5 1 0
v New Zealand 3 94.3 246 10 4/88 5/132 24.60 2.60 56.7 0 0
v Pakistan 6 180 604 27 5/79 8/74 22.37 3.35 40.0 1 0
v Sri Lanka 2 88 257 14 5/54 8/127 18.35 2.92 37.7 1 0
v West Indies 5 117.2 395 23 5/49 7/82 17.17 3.36 30.6 2 0
v Zimbabwe 1 50.1 113 11 8/71 11/113 10.27 2.25 27.3 1 1


And the Batsmen he got out most often in that 40 test period:

MA Atherton (RHB) 9 1 3 4 0 1 0 29.55 1 Eng
Saeed Anwar (LHB) 7 0 4 2 0 1 0 19.85 0 Pak
GA Hick (RHB) 6 2 2 1 0 1 0 19.00 0 Eng
MR Ramprakash (RHB) 6 2 0 3 0 1 0 21.50 0 Eng
BC Lara (LHB) 5 0 3 0 0 1 1 24.40 0 WI
NR Mongia (RHB) 5 2 1 2 0 0 0 16.40 0 Ind
J Srinath (RHB) 5 1 3 0 0 1 0 14.00 1 Ind
AJ Stewart (RHB) 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 60.00 0 Eng
MTG Elliott (LHB) 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 29.00 0 Aus
D Gough (RHB) 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 7.75 0 Eng
N Hussain (RHB) 4 0 1 2 0 1 0 19.25 1 Eng
PA Wallace (RHB) 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 4.25 0 WI
ME Waugh (RHB) 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 8.00 1 Aus

[Officer Barbrady]

Originally Posted by zorawar Ridiculous comment about Bob destroying Donald... Also crediting Bob with Donald's awesome figures is also not exactly right... Bob took over when Donald was getting to his best and left before his last few years when he declined... All you can say is Bob did not have a bad effect on Donald's performance and he kept performing at a high level during his tenure.

Exactly!

[Ayubi]

Originally Posted by Marooned Originally Posted by Ayubi Marooned, if I remember correctly I had a discussion with you a while back where you said that despite what the stats suggest, Waqar cannot be considered one of the greatest bowlers ever. Your point being, stats don't always paint the correct picture. You have got it slightly wrong, my point was that you cannot simply quote his stats of a 5 year period (as was done in that thread) and say that Waqar was the greatest fast bowler EVER. In Donald's case 1) I have seen many of the matches that he played under BW. 2) I have seen him play a very crucial role in the victories that South Africa achieved. 3) I believe (without looking at stats) that he was one of the three best fast bowlers at the time. 4) We are talking about his time under Bob Woolmer and trying to prove that he wasn't destroyed by BW (as alleged by another poster) not calling him the greatest bowler ever! I really don't know whether Woolmer destroyed or boosted Donald's career but it would be interesting to know the wickets he got under Woolmer according to batting order & how important each wicket was I agree and here's a list of his averages against each team and the players he got out most time in that period: v Australia 5 208.4 539 23 6/59 9/133 23.43 2.58 54.4 2 0 v England 13 506.4 1560 64 6/88 8/115 24.37 3.07 47.5 6 0 v India 5 182.4 460 30 5/40 9/54 15.33 2.51 36.5 1 0 v New Zealand 3 94.3 246 10 4/88 5/132 24.60 2.60 56.7 0 0 v Pakistan 6 180 604 27 5/79 8/74 22.37 3.35 40.0 1 0 v Sri Lanka 2 88 257 14 5/54 8/127 18.35 2.92 37.7 1 0 v West Indies 5 117.2 395 23 5/49 7/82 17.17 3.36 30.6 2 0 v Zimbabwe 1 50.1 113 11 8/71 11/113 10.27 2.25 27.3 1 1 And the Batsmen he got out most often in that 40 test period: MA Atherton (RHB) 9 1 3 4 0 1 0 29.55 1 Eng Saeed Anwar (LHB) 7 0 4 2 0 1 0 19.85 0 Pak GA Hick (RHB) 6 2 2 1 0 1 0 19.00 0 Eng MR Ramprakash (RHB) 6 2 0 3 0 1 0 21.50 0 Eng BC Lara (LHB) 5 0 3 0 0 1 1 24.40 0 WI NR Mongia (RHB) 5 2 1 2 0 0 0 16.40 0 Ind J Srinath (RHB) 5 1 3 0 0 1 0 14.00 1 Ind AJ Stewart (RHB) 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 60.00 0 Eng MTG Elliott (LHB) 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 29.00 0 Aus D Gough (RHB) 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 7.75 0 Eng N Hussain (RHB) 4 0 1 2 0 1 0 19.25 1 Eng PA Wallace (RHB) 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 4.25 0 WI ME Waugh (RHB) 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 8.00 1 Aus

OK good post & point taken. Donald was a great bowler no doubt but after Bob's retardness since taking on the Pakistanis something inside me suggests he wasn't the one responsible for Donald's success!

[Hash]

You can say Bob is a retard.....I do not share that opinion but you can say that.

nobody is saynig he was responsible for Donald's success. We are simply saying that he did not 'destroy Alan Donald' as a couple of people on this thread have said. All the evidence is to the contrary

[Ayubi]

Thanks Hash, I know I can say he's a retard. That's why I did!

[Hash]

and I am entitled to say people who think Bob destroyed alan donald are retards!

Yes Hash, you also have the right to remain a chumcha!

If it is so clear that Bob didn't destroy Donald's career, why so many replies? Esp on a thread that is not even about him!!

Anyway, whatever anyone says, Bob did take away Donald's killer instinct....he no longer became a blaster...I prefer blasters, and you guys prefer, the safe option....personal choice. I like to watch aggressive, fiery cricket, you guys prefer stats....

[Hash]

no mate.


I'd rather have a bowler who gets wickets than a bowler who charges in and looks angry the entire time.

And under woolmer, donald got wickets (and plenty of them). That is a fact my friend.

[Officer Barbrady]

Any one remember that famous spell against Atherton when Donald was all fired up? Or against Steve Waugh? Lara? Yes they were all under Woolmer.

Anyhow this discussion has become quite pointless.

[Hash]

I remember those spells very well marooned.

I agree this discussion has become pointless. This thread consists of fact after fact, evidence after evidence that Woolmer DID NOT destroy Donald but if someone is blindly driven by hatred then you are never going to change your mind are you! If Woolmer said the sky was blue these people would say 'no, its green'.

Anyway, this thread was about Sami!

[Ayubi]

Originally Posted by Hash and I am entitled to say people who think Bob destroyed alan donald are retards!

Fine, get personal mate, doesn't bother me!

[MIG]

Simple rules for ALL to follow:

1. No name calling - applies to current/past players, coaches and officials .

2. No personal abuse or personal remarks.

ALL above can consider this a warning.

If you feel that you cant make your point without breaking above rules, pls dont bother posting.

[Hash]

apologies MIG. Will not happen again.

Apologies also to Ayubi.......[Edited by Mods]