West Indies v Pakistan, 4th ODI, St Lucia July 21, 2013

Without rain, game would have been different - Samuels

ESPNcricinfo staff
  shares 63

West Indies batsman Marlon Samuels rued the interference of rain during his team's defeat to Pakistan in the fourth ODI in St Lucia, hinting at the possibility of a different result had the weather held good. A formidable 262-run target, masterminded by Samuels' fifth ODI century, was revised to 189 in 31 overs, which was chased down courtesy rapid fifties from Mohammad Hafeez and Misbah-ul-Haq.

"If the rain didn't come today, then definitely we would have been in the driver's seat," Samuels told WICB media after the game. "It was a lot of runs on the board and the Pakistan batting has not been clicking consistently. We know we have quality bowlers, so I think that we could have put some pressure on them today and it would have been a different game."

Samuels steered West Indies after a difficult start, playing cautiously to begin with, as was demanded. He added 57 runs with Chris Gayle, who came in at No. 5, to prepare a foundation for a late-order charge that he led himself, having gained confidence from reaching his fifty - his first since his century against Bangladesh in 2012. With Lendl Simmons for company, he smashed his way to a hundred in the next 35 balls.

"I had a good talk with Dr Scott Hamilton [West Indies' sports psychologist] and I was trying to refresh my memory of the way my style of play is," Samuels said. "My style of play is give myself a chance and push it around, and then I can definitely make up at the end. I've been doing that job for the past two years and it was just for me to refresh my memory and continue along the road that I was on.

"They [Pakistan] have a high-class bowling attack but when I see a bowling attack two or three times, I sum it up properly. I've been watching a lot of tapes with Richard Berridge [video and statistical analyst] and by just summing them up, I realised who I'm going to target and who I'm not going to target and get as much singles as possible, so I batted to a plan today and it actually worked."

Rain arrived in the 17th over of the chase and stole over an hour from the game, reducing it to a 31-over sprint. Then, Pakistan captain Misbah and Hafeez's partnership of 72 runs in 55 balls put the game beyond West Indies' reach. "We were looking to exploit the pitch but the rain came early," Misbah said. "It was like a normal T20 game, Hafeez and I wanted to play normal cricketing shots. It was a case of not panicking. We needed eight an over and I had to adjust. The team will gain from the momentum today."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Desihungama on | July 24, 2013, 2:35 GMT

    P.S It was Captain's attitude that cost WI the game. It was evident in their body language when they were on the field and street smart cricketers like Hafeez and Misbah can sense that.

  • POSTED BY bouncer709 on | July 24, 2013, 0:08 GMT

    Dear Samuel, Minus rain you were not Man of the Match

  • POSTED BY on | July 23, 2013, 23:35 GMT

    100 % Agreed with Kak-mal_Khan, Desihungama & bouncer709. Guys, Your words explain it all... Any neutral person would suggest Samuels to refrain from giving such statements that weakens the spirit of the game.

  • POSTED BY Kak-mal_Khan on | July 23, 2013, 17:54 GMT

    I needed to do this to highlight the batting consistency questioning of Samuels. Pakistan during the 4 ODI's of the series have scored aggregate of 837 runs = 209.25 per innings (remember guys the 4th match innings was reduced for Pak and so could not face the full alloted 49 overs as WI had). OK now WI who have been able to complete all their innings in more or less normal playing conditions have aggregate of 820 runs = 205 per innings. OK why is it possible that WI can score 261 runs in a match after scoring ONLY 98 runs in the 1st match, and Pakistan who so famous for their 'unpredictability' (that the word should be accompanied with a pic of the Pak team when looked up in a dictionary), would not have been able to chase a target, which in this day and age is hardly formidable? I'm sorry to say Samuel's, I do support your team when they play against others, but your bowling is hardly Holding, Garner & Marshall.

  • POSTED BY t20cric on | July 23, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    Samuels ruined his good century by saying something like this. Pakistan were at 68/2 at the 17th over and at the same spot WI were 63/3. Pak still needed 194 in 32 overs which means the required run rate was 6.06. After rain Pakistan needed 121 in 14 overs so figuratively rain bowled an economical 18 overs for only 73 runs. That meant the required run rate spiked from 6.06 to 8.64 after the rain. Given that Misbah known for slow batting and Hafeez who is in bad form were at the crease I think Pak had the disadvantage after the match resumed. The fact that they accelerated was due to their relatively good start. I was watching this match and had a bad feeling about Pak's chase but was surprised to see Bravo complaining about the target. The captain's negativity showed in all the WI players after the match resumed. They were definitely not playing wholeheartedly and as a consequence they lost the match. The target was set by empires and Pak is a regular victim of umpiring desicions.

  • POSTED BY rsgarcia on | July 23, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    First off, I have no idea why everyone assumes the WI were evaporating the moisture from the pitch. It's umpires that control start times, not the teams. Second, Samuels is right. And not because of the 261 alone--because of the fact that all our best bowlers had already reached their 5 over limit by the time the match resumed. If you think Pakistan would have made that amount of runs against our best bowlers on that day with 49 overs, you haven't been paying attention to the series. It's the Pakistan supporters on this post that are being really biased when you all know you breathed a sigh of relief when you heard the new conditions when the match re-started. Please stop pretending that this Pakistan team was guaranteed to win this when you know they were one wicket away from collapse before the rain. After, all the pressure was off, the best bowlers were gone, and Misbah just had to hold on for a few overs and it wouldn't matter what Afridi did or didn't do.

  • POSTED BY bouncer709 on | July 23, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    @SaintAubyn: oh dear don't play with the facts, in fact the 45 min delay in the start was to help WI, because there was moisture in the pitch, and they gave extra 45 min before match start to evaporate that moisture from the pitch, Pakistan had won the toss and choose to bowl first looking at the moisture in the pitch. So you were going to score 20-25 runs in 50th over? Why didn't your team scored 25 in 49th over, 48th over? Don't be fool and don't try to make people fool. Nasir Jamshed LBW, one Short run, Ahmed Shahzad doubtful catch out at boundry, Samuel LBW at 0 not given, .... we did not cry, Why are you crying... It is also dumb excuse that there top bowler had already bowled overs, see what hafeez did to your top Holder after rain, Narine also gave more run in his last over. He bowled 2 overs of last 13 overs, minus rain he could have bowled 5 overs of 32 overs, the ratio remains the same.

  • POSTED BY on | July 23, 2013, 10:19 GMT

    The point is not what conditions favored who, the point is rules are made to follow and we must follow them in the great spirit of the game and accept the challenge, rain, no rain, overcast, clouds, moisture, sun shine, rough surface and what else may or may not be, it all comes down to overcoming the challenge, D/L method favored Pakistan, is is their fault? Samuel would have been equally happier to have encountered the same situation if they batted 2nd. sometimes games are won with an external force. Let us take it that way and accept it, no whats and no iffs..

  • POSTED BY Kak-mal_Khan on | July 23, 2013, 7:37 GMT

    Poor to blame rain, may be Pakistan would have thrashed off the 262 runs if Shahid Afridi and Umar Akmal clicked with Misbah as anchor. The target was not that formidable, not like a 300+ score. Also this is home game for Windies so Samuels should be scoring century that is his job as batsman, especially at home, you grew up in these conditions bro, and you are representing your country! P.S. One run disallowed in previous game cost Pakistan a victory.

  • POSTED BY on | July 23, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    If Pakistan was not amongst runs, same is the case with WI. If WI click in a single match then why he doubt on Pakistan. So stop making excuses and face the music

  • POSTED BY Desihungama on | July 24, 2013, 2:35 GMT

    P.S It was Captain's attitude that cost WI the game. It was evident in their body language when they were on the field and street smart cricketers like Hafeez and Misbah can sense that.

  • POSTED BY bouncer709 on | July 24, 2013, 0:08 GMT

    Dear Samuel, Minus rain you were not Man of the Match

  • POSTED BY on | July 23, 2013, 23:35 GMT

    100 % Agreed with Kak-mal_Khan, Desihungama & bouncer709. Guys, Your words explain it all... Any neutral person would suggest Samuels to refrain from giving such statements that weakens the spirit of the game.

  • POSTED BY Kak-mal_Khan on | July 23, 2013, 17:54 GMT

    I needed to do this to highlight the batting consistency questioning of Samuels. Pakistan during the 4 ODI's of the series have scored aggregate of 837 runs = 209.25 per innings (remember guys the 4th match innings was reduced for Pak and so could not face the full alloted 49 overs as WI had). OK now WI who have been able to complete all their innings in more or less normal playing conditions have aggregate of 820 runs = 205 per innings. OK why is it possible that WI can score 261 runs in a match after scoring ONLY 98 runs in the 1st match, and Pakistan who so famous for their 'unpredictability' (that the word should be accompanied with a pic of the Pak team when looked up in a dictionary), would not have been able to chase a target, which in this day and age is hardly formidable? I'm sorry to say Samuel's, I do support your team when they play against others, but your bowling is hardly Holding, Garner & Marshall.

  • POSTED BY t20cric on | July 23, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    Samuels ruined his good century by saying something like this. Pakistan were at 68/2 at the 17th over and at the same spot WI were 63/3. Pak still needed 194 in 32 overs which means the required run rate was 6.06. After rain Pakistan needed 121 in 14 overs so figuratively rain bowled an economical 18 overs for only 73 runs. That meant the required run rate spiked from 6.06 to 8.64 after the rain. Given that Misbah known for slow batting and Hafeez who is in bad form were at the crease I think Pak had the disadvantage after the match resumed. The fact that they accelerated was due to their relatively good start. I was watching this match and had a bad feeling about Pak's chase but was surprised to see Bravo complaining about the target. The captain's negativity showed in all the WI players after the match resumed. They were definitely not playing wholeheartedly and as a consequence they lost the match. The target was set by empires and Pak is a regular victim of umpiring desicions.

  • POSTED BY rsgarcia on | July 23, 2013, 14:53 GMT

    First off, I have no idea why everyone assumes the WI were evaporating the moisture from the pitch. It's umpires that control start times, not the teams. Second, Samuels is right. And not because of the 261 alone--because of the fact that all our best bowlers had already reached their 5 over limit by the time the match resumed. If you think Pakistan would have made that amount of runs against our best bowlers on that day with 49 overs, you haven't been paying attention to the series. It's the Pakistan supporters on this post that are being really biased when you all know you breathed a sigh of relief when you heard the new conditions when the match re-started. Please stop pretending that this Pakistan team was guaranteed to win this when you know they were one wicket away from collapse before the rain. After, all the pressure was off, the best bowlers were gone, and Misbah just had to hold on for a few overs and it wouldn't matter what Afridi did or didn't do.

  • POSTED BY bouncer709 on | July 23, 2013, 12:26 GMT

    @SaintAubyn: oh dear don't play with the facts, in fact the 45 min delay in the start was to help WI, because there was moisture in the pitch, and they gave extra 45 min before match start to evaporate that moisture from the pitch, Pakistan had won the toss and choose to bowl first looking at the moisture in the pitch. So you were going to score 20-25 runs in 50th over? Why didn't your team scored 25 in 49th over, 48th over? Don't be fool and don't try to make people fool. Nasir Jamshed LBW, one Short run, Ahmed Shahzad doubtful catch out at boundry, Samuel LBW at 0 not given, .... we did not cry, Why are you crying... It is also dumb excuse that there top bowler had already bowled overs, see what hafeez did to your top Holder after rain, Narine also gave more run in his last over. He bowled 2 overs of last 13 overs, minus rain he could have bowled 5 overs of 32 overs, the ratio remains the same.

  • POSTED BY on | July 23, 2013, 10:19 GMT

    The point is not what conditions favored who, the point is rules are made to follow and we must follow them in the great spirit of the game and accept the challenge, rain, no rain, overcast, clouds, moisture, sun shine, rough surface and what else may or may not be, it all comes down to overcoming the challenge, D/L method favored Pakistan, is is their fault? Samuel would have been equally happier to have encountered the same situation if they batted 2nd. sometimes games are won with an external force. Let us take it that way and accept it, no whats and no iffs..

  • POSTED BY Kak-mal_Khan on | July 23, 2013, 7:37 GMT

    Poor to blame rain, may be Pakistan would have thrashed off the 262 runs if Shahid Afridi and Umar Akmal clicked with Misbah as anchor. The target was not that formidable, not like a 300+ score. Also this is home game for Windies so Samuels should be scoring century that is his job as batsman, especially at home, you grew up in these conditions bro, and you are representing your country! P.S. One run disallowed in previous game cost Pakistan a victory.

  • POSTED BY on | July 23, 2013, 6:43 GMT

    If Pakistan was not amongst runs, same is the case with WI. If WI click in a single match then why he doubt on Pakistan. So stop making excuses and face the music

  • POSTED BY on | July 23, 2013, 3:58 GMT

    Actually his last ton was last year Dec 2012 (126). After a long time when anybody get 100 and lost the match it happens with ordinary star. But why he dosn't realize (MINUS his 100) game would haven't been different ....

  • POSTED BY on | July 23, 2013, 2:21 GMT

    Did we cry when a short run was given ? Nd stop making excuses . The matches are being played in yr country . Your board should know where to.hold the matches so that rain isn't a factor .

  • POSTED BY Desihungama on | July 23, 2013, 2:01 GMT

    Pretty biased write up including the comments from Samuel. He should savor his century as I did not see Afridi crying foul when Pakistan lost to WI on D/L after rain interrupted WI innings during their previous series. And what of his first ball lbw? Not to mention of the umpiring howlers going against Pak. Was Nasir Jamshed really lbw in third match if you even know abc of cricket? It's been a great series so far and hoping for cracker next.

  • POSTED BY Fika77 on | July 23, 2013, 1:32 GMT

    @ Joe-car: So it is Pak's fault that rain came and they won the match. Come on man, with DL, you gain sometimes and you lose sometimes.

  • POSTED BY bouncer709 on | July 23, 2013, 0:08 GMT

    @Riddymon: In last matches non of the team achieved 250 doesn't mean that 260 was not achievable, In first 3 ODI see the performance of Samuel who scored 92 of 224 balls, here he scored 100, so he started thinking that he is a big player and there is no other on the earth, but fact is that this pitch was straight and no help for the bowlers, So if Pakistan scored 121 in 13 overs loosing only two wickets, SO they could have scored remaining 260-68=192 in 49-17=32 overs, more easily.

  • POSTED BY Mel-waas on | July 22, 2013, 23:05 GMT

    It was a Flat batting track which was it was so easy to score. That even Hafeez came back in form. It was a wicket where a Team like India or South Africa would have scored 300+. So no I don't think the rain made a big difference. 261 was NOT Enough

  • POSTED BY SaintAubyn on | July 22, 2013, 22:44 GMT

    The Umpires slow and inefficient handling of the rain delays also worked against WI. The pitch inspection was delayed for 45 mins while the sun blazed after the very brief morning shower. With Samuel in full throttle they might very well have scored another 20-25 runs off the 50th over, had not the time wasting umpires reduced the match by 1 over. The Pakistan inning would have also progressed further before the second delay, exposing it more to the top bowlers and fielders in attack mode.

    The very slow reaction after the 2nd shower meant more time wasted. The pitch was protected so why wait for a bone-dry field before commencing? Why not ask Bravo if he was prepared to field on a damp surface, thus allowing a quicker start and less time loss?

    In this era of technology umpires have become little more than stand-in robots pressing the replay button to make decisions but unable to show any true initiative and creative crisis management. Bring back Sang Hue (*wink) and Dickie Bird

  • POSTED BY SaintAubyn on | July 22, 2013, 22:16 GMT

    Was going to comment but Joe-car elegantly covered every point I was going to make.

  • POSTED BY Dr_Zeus on | July 22, 2013, 20:28 GMT

    I second the motion that Bravo Senior should be relieved of his captaincy...Isn't his reaction to the umpires decision to shorten the match against "the spirit of the game" ?....I be Sammy would have never reacted that way and would have instead encouraged his players that they could still win the match. Bravo's behaviour in inexcusable...and also, I don't see why he, with a bowling average of 6 rpo would want to bowl the final over and leave out two other players who up to that point had averages of 3 rpo....bad captaincy all around if u ask me. The critics of Sammy I am sure, have never witnessed such horrid captaincy during his tenure....BRAVO YOU HAVE JUST LOST ONE SUPPORTER...#thumbsdownbravo#

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 19:27 GMT

    Samuel... Dnt cry due to rain.. Rain made the game even more difficult, because run rate was about below 6 before rain and later it was 8 an over and it was even more difficult especially when form of Pakistani batsmen is pathetic..

  • POSTED BY greek-paratha on | July 22, 2013, 17:59 GMT

    Misbah-the Mr. Cool personified- does it again!So lay off our Captain Fantastic. The guy had to hold the team together after the quick mass departures of our BIG3-Inzzy,Yusuf,and Younis.The cupboard is bare and we are living in denial. Pakistan rarely produces players who are mentally strong because of their upbringing.These days talent alone dosen't suffice.Shahid Afridi the prime example.Even India only recently aquired the mental strength to win after spending time,money and coaching over a long period.And at 39 I dread to think whose going to take over after Misbah.Investing in youth alone does not work for Pakistan.Cricket is big business and it needs to be well managed in all departments.And unfortunately Pakistan can only pine for the days of Majid, Zaheer,Waqar,Miandad, Asif Iqbal,Wasim,Imran and that golden era.Talent in domestic cricket is aplenty,but to harness it and nurture the potential needs alot of thought and time and theres nobody at the helm to take charge.

  • POSTED BY khiladisher on | July 22, 2013, 17:25 GMT

    Dwayne Bravo is an awful skipper,who is nowhere equal to Sammy.Big mistake to remove Sammy.Pollard and Gayle are poor one day players.They perform only for IPL.Sammy has to be reinstated for future success if any.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 17:04 GMT

    We were not crying when a short run given by umpire and we lost the 3rd match due to that short run. Samuels needs to think positive its cricket. Misbah falls rains not its natural. Accept defeat rather than excuses....

  • POSTED BY UK_Chap on | July 22, 2013, 17:03 GMT

    Darren Sammy is very selective in his memory when it comes to the weather helping teams. In 2011 when Pakistan toured West Indies, Pakistan had won the first three games and they were well on the way to winning the fourth, I remember Darren Shouting at the batter to swing for boundary as it had started to rain. Consequently the batsman swung and hit a six and that was the last ball bowled because of the rain, that last six put West Indies ahead of the D/L rate and West Indies were declared winners because the rain never stopped. I did not hear Afridi complaining about the rain or the result.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 17:02 GMT

    With reset target, it gave Pakistan batsman space to play their natural game. Pakistan's natural game is aggressive, mistake prone, inconsistent. Whatmore as coach is trying to bring "consistency" in their play. When Pakistan plays for consistency, they always under perform. It is not their nature, not their culture, it is not their personality. Whatmore should quit and leave Pakistan Cricket team to Pakistan Coaches.

  • POSTED BY Riddymon on | July 22, 2013, 16:19 GMT

    Of course...all the pakistan supporters would say "it was equal and Samuels shouldn't complain" but the fact of the matter is that neither batting side has shown the skill to reach anywhere NEAR 250 this series so the Windies were EASY favorites to win but the weather kinda shifted things. Yes it was stiff target but they needed something like 121 in 14 hours with 7 wickets in hand.Yes, difficult but much more doable than 263 in 49 overs.

  • POSTED BY roook on | July 22, 2013, 15:56 GMT

    Samuels is rigth we have some good quality batsman but we have struggled in the past to chase lows scores. The problem with our batsmans is that they cannot pace their innings for a 50 over game. In this game misbah take single of every narine ball but i am definitely sure he have played dot balls if it is a 50 over game in fear of losing wickets. Though Well played Pakistan love to see some aggression after a long time.

  • POSTED BY Omarrz on | July 22, 2013, 15:54 GMT

    Mr. Samuels, why are you forgetting that rain actually helped your top order to NOT fail in this game? There was a 45 mins delay after the toss and any advantage Pakistan thought they would have had, was lost as the sun dried up the pitch and its moisture.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 15:53 GMT

    Bravo Sr. should be relieved of captaincy. He thinks he is the best.time and again he fails and doesnot realise it.Sammy is the best. He(sammy) would not bowl himself if he thinks he is leaking runs. Ideal team for ODI's would be 1. Gayle(explosive) 2. Charles(explosive) 3. Bravo Jr.(grafter) 4. Samuel(Run maker/Spinner) 5. Sarwan(Run maker) 6. Simmons (Stroke maker/Big hitter) 7. Sammy (Bowler/Big hitter) 8. Narine (Mystery) 9. Ravi Rampaul (Fast) 10. Roach (Fast) 11. Holder(Fast). They need to groom the team. Pollard is once in a blue moon player. Drop him.

  • POSTED BY Joe-car on | July 22, 2013, 14:46 GMT

    With all due respect to everyone who has commented on this thread, I think it's a bit naive to think that the rain did not advantage Pakistan at all. The D/L method stacks the deck heavily in favour of the team batting second. It has been proves time and again that it is far easier to score 9 runs/over over 12 overs compared to 5 runs/over over 31. And the point people tend to overlook in rain reduced games is that the team that bolws second loses some of it's best bolwer's overs and it's even worse when overs are reduced when your best bolwer has already bolwed some of his overs; he may not get a chance to bolw again. So yes I agree with Samuels, the rain favoured Pakistan. And there's also the issue of wickets, the reduction of overs meant that they had more wickets to play with. i.e. They could afford to throw the bat at the ball without worrying about losing too many wickets.

  • POSTED BY CricketChat on | July 22, 2013, 13:47 GMT

    The target after rain interruption seemed more even given Pak's top order batting woes of late. I think Hafeez's innings provided momentum for the chase. The match could have gone into the last over with 12-15 to get, but Umar finished off in style without any possibility of panic by Pak batsmen. That's why I think Umar should be in the team for ODIs and T20s all the time.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 13:42 GMT

    West Indies actually lost those matched due mainly to poor captaincy by Bravo which included poor bowler selections. If we examine the the score you would see that he and Pollard leaked heavy runs and Pollard contributed nothing with the bat. I am quite happy he was not selected to play and i hope this will be the end of him. Time for Gibson to get some young players back in the fold. I'm not a Gayle fan but he is going through a slump and will come back. I remember years ago Walsh went through a bad slump and he was replaced by Ezra Mosley. He used that time to lead Jamaica and regain his fire and when he got back in he never looked back. So maybe Gayle needs a little rest to regain his fire. Sarwan was given a bad deal and looks lie its curtains for him, but if you all have been reading i really am upset about Pollard getting so many chances and Ramdin, Sarwan and Best got dropped before he was.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 13:36 GMT

    There are no 'ifs' and 'buts' in cricket..

  • POSTED BY espncricinfomobile on | July 22, 2013, 13:27 GMT

    I think without rain it wasn't easy task for Pak to get 262 becos they get under pressure and defensive. Still well done to get 120 in 14 overs its got easier for Pak bcos they had wickets in hand and our players are more aggressive than defensive and they played their natural game and pressure shifted on windies. I bet if windies had 2 quick wickets after rain they could have been in much better position I appeal to misbah and coach please try to be attacking That's the way they can win more and more matches

  • POSTED BY keptalittlelow on | July 22, 2013, 13:10 GMT

    Pakistan were asked to socre at more than 9/over after the rain, with no power play. All the commetators agreed it was a tough ask which ever way you look at it. Pakistan should have been declared the winner of the third ODI after it was clearly proved that Umar Akmal did not run short.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | July 22, 2013, 12:01 GMT

    u beauty pak u deserve the win wish u all the best for next mathes

  • POSTED BY ever_green on | July 22, 2013, 11:32 GMT

    Pakistan could have win anyway they played with the average of 6+.So do not blame rain please.

  • POSTED BY MichealT on | July 22, 2013, 10:57 GMT

    West Indies weakness against spin could be exploited through Rehman who is a high quality performer. Wahab Riaz is a good bowler but in these conditions a spinner could be a better option. Pakistan batting might not cross 260 but achieving 189/30 is a better performance. Pakistan could have won the previous one day easily and given the Pakistan intensity I can say they have chance to win this series.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 10:55 GMT

    Well when Misbah elected to field his idea was to take advantage of moisture in the wicket but soon after the toss,the sun started to shine which made the wicket dried and eventually the decision to bowl first was back fired on Pakistan but does that mean that start to blame the sun? nevertheless, mother nature had a different plan for Misbah which should be accepted by WI open heartedly, these rules are made after thorough deliberations and calculations. Take it and deal with it, the way team Pakistan did......weldone Misbah and Hafeez.

  • POSTED BY Hawk_Pk on | July 22, 2013, 10:44 GMT

    Disappointing to see West Indian Cricket has come down to players like these. there used to be players with giant stature unlike who scores in a millennium and then weeps for a decade...

  • POSTED BY KyaBakwaasHai on | July 22, 2013, 10:39 GMT

    Dear Mr. Samuels,

    FYI, without the short run wrongly given my the umpire during the 3rd ODI, the result would have been different!!! Get over it!

  • POSTED BY Happy_AusBang on | July 22, 2013, 10:37 GMT

    Pakistan had lost all the powerplay overs so they were at a disadvantage too. You can argue it many ways.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 10:20 GMT

    What a loser statement by a player who played a really good innings! I didnt know WestIndians were whiners.. before it was Bravo who looked ridiculous on TV complaining about the DRS score sheet and now Samuels. They are going to win a lot of matches with sportsmanship like that!

  • POSTED BY Chaudry_Cricket on | July 22, 2013, 10:07 GMT

    Stop blaming the rain samuels. Blame your teams lack of intent and positive attitude. It was always west indies game to lose because pakistan lost 17 including 5 powerplay overs and belive me that was tough enough for pakistan but they showed intent and positive attitude.

  • POSTED BY Blade-Runner on | July 22, 2013, 9:55 GMT

    I just noticed something interesting. Could you believe that both Samules n Sangakkara debuted in the same year ?? Yeah it was 2000. :))) Just see where they are now. Sanga is already among the greatests. And Samules ??? well, you all know where he stands. :)) keep talking Sam.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 9:54 GMT

    Dear Samuels, Please don't cry. Pakistan would have won the series if the short run was not wrongly adjudged in last game. WI wouldn't have scored much if the pitch had moisture in it if didn't rain the first time in this match.and ground staff had taken less time.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 9:47 GMT

    This is coming from a Pakistani fan, but Samuels does actually have a point. Because of the D/L method, all of the WI top bowlers had almost bowled out and so had to rely on their part timers. I wonder how long Pakistan would have lasted in the long run against the full bowling attack.

    That said, well played by Pakistan and good to see them playing in an attacking fashion!

  • POSTED BY PadMarley on | July 22, 2013, 9:46 GMT

    Samuels is not talking muach sense here. Without rain from where it was Pakistan would have to score 71 more runs in 20 overs with 6 wickets remaining. And that sounds really scary!! Without rain, Pakistan would have scored with less risk and perhaps with more wickets in hands!!

  • POSTED BY Resultpredictor on | July 22, 2013, 9:40 GMT

    It was good victory by Pakistan. Hafeez scored a very important 50 and Misbah played in attacking mood. I think series will be shared 2-2

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 9:21 GMT

    I thought D/L went in Windies favor. 9 runs an over against the world champions was never easy. For once Pakistani batsmen played well. Hafeez looks like a different player when he is playing the shortest version of the game.

  • POSTED BY Blade-Runner on | July 22, 2013, 9:13 GMT

    Is Samuels for real ? Pakistan lost 17 overs including 5 overs of power play. But target was reduced by 73 runs. Its hilarious to think that WI would have won if full 49 overs had been played. lol It was their fault that they couldn't pick more wkts by the time rain came down. Pakistan had to chase 120 something in 14 overs n they did. Samuels hit century after a decade or something n now talk rubbish. Yeah Sam -talk Nah. Wonderful effort from Pakistan. I hope they will finish the series 3-1. All the best from Sri Lanka !!!

  • POSTED BY salman.ali.rai on | July 22, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    As long as players don't show sportsmanship specially on such occasions, I don't think they can evolve as cricketers. Samuels scored a brilliant hundred but you just can't pin down your teams loss to DL method. I was very surprised to see Bravo's reaction when the umpires handed him that DL sheet. It certainly was favoring WI. I have never seen this Pakistan team chase down around 120 runs in the last 14 overs. So you really had to bowl very badly to concede the game to Pakistan and WI did exactly that. Poor field selection combined by bad bowling cost WI the game, not the DL method. Look at it, 14 overs to go and 120 to get with Hafeez and Misbah in with a slogger in Afridi to come, I think WI should have charged up when the play resumed instead of those dropped shoulders. All the credit to Hafeez, Misbah and Akmal.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    Samuels is behaving like Bangladeshi players who started crying after losing Asia Cup from Pakistan..

  • POSTED BY Baundele on | July 22, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    Even after the rain it was West Indies' match to lose, and they successfully did that. Do not blame the rain, blame the captain who continued bowling by himself instead of Sammy.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 8:37 GMT

    Pakistan should play like that more often, it proves that when they are aggressive that they are a very talented batting side. We have got high quality players but they need to regain their confidence. I also agree with Khurram S Chaudhry.

  • POSTED BY SNIFFLEATHER on | July 22, 2013, 8:17 GMT

    Samuels is painted as a sore loser here - but that would be incorrect, he merely stated a fact - the game would have been different. Credit to the tourists who did what they needed to do to win, but once again, the weather ruined the game.

  • POSTED BY Naseer.HKG on | July 22, 2013, 8:11 GMT

    come on samuels ! ...don't cry foul , they way they were batting Pak would have won the match anyway, they scored at an average of 6.30 overall and 9.30 per over after the rain....there was something different in pak players attitude from the start of their batting in this match.

  • POSTED BY Gagananand66 on | July 22, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    Cant the cricket boards schedule matches as per weather conditions. Same thing happened with almost every match in Champions Trophy.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    Same response, but a little change of words in the comment after CT 2013. "We would have won this game, if we also have a played a 30-over match,we would have hit the same 261 runs in 30 overs only because we are 20-20 champions and we would have defeated pakistan' Funny, isn't it.....All the teams are champions some point of time, Game will go their way on their day. - Fan of Samuels ( Watched Samules blistering 116* notout in Vijayawada in his early days of year 2002)

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    crying over spilled milk...& one shouldnt be that rude Mr Samuels

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 7:52 GMT

    D/L is confusing as always but its there for so many years. and some say it helped pak as score was reduced but it also helped WI. when rain arrived, PAk required @ 6.06 Runs per over. when it resumed Pak target was @8.64 runs per over. & 1 good over it was above 9 . and even in t20 if you bowl well thats not that easy to get in t20s.

    also this statement" WI main bowlers were already bowled" . when it resumed, roach have 1, naraine has 2, holder 2, sammy has 3 = thats 8 out of 14. and 5th bowler is required even in 50 over match. so sounding it like because of D/l WI got no bowling options left. the fact is they bowled bad after rain. Holder was the 1 who started leaking runs. even naraine was expensive. and bravo didnt gave any overs to sammy at all who has been very decent. so putting it all on D/L is not that right. they had 8 out of 14 overs left from 1st 4 bowlers used. 5th bowler is always required. but bravo used him even though he is not that good in the last overs of innings

  • POSTED BY lyl67 on | July 22, 2013, 7:47 GMT

    Plesae let me Know why Sammy bowled three overs . Bravo is not a good captain, he does not take advice. I have seen sometimes how he has ignored Sammy in particular, as if he is trying to say, I am the better allrounder, naybe, but definiely lacking in the captaincy department.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 7:29 GMT

    With respect, please samules accept the defeat becoz it was equal for both teams so please.....:)

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 7:29 GMT

    With respect, please samules accept the defeat becoz it was equal for both teams so please.....:)

  • POSTED BY lyl67 on | July 22, 2013, 7:47 GMT

    Plesae let me Know why Sammy bowled three overs . Bravo is not a good captain, he does not take advice. I have seen sometimes how he has ignored Sammy in particular, as if he is trying to say, I am the better allrounder, naybe, but definiely lacking in the captaincy department.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 7:52 GMT

    D/L is confusing as always but its there for so many years. and some say it helped pak as score was reduced but it also helped WI. when rain arrived, PAk required @ 6.06 Runs per over. when it resumed Pak target was @8.64 runs per over. & 1 good over it was above 9 . and even in t20 if you bowl well thats not that easy to get in t20s.

    also this statement" WI main bowlers were already bowled" . when it resumed, roach have 1, naraine has 2, holder 2, sammy has 3 = thats 8 out of 14. and 5th bowler is required even in 50 over match. so sounding it like because of D/l WI got no bowling options left. the fact is they bowled bad after rain. Holder was the 1 who started leaking runs. even naraine was expensive. and bravo didnt gave any overs to sammy at all who has been very decent. so putting it all on D/L is not that right. they had 8 out of 14 overs left from 1st 4 bowlers used. 5th bowler is always required. but bravo used him even though he is not that good in the last overs of innings

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 7:58 GMT

    crying over spilled milk...& one shouldnt be that rude Mr Samuels

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    Same response, but a little change of words in the comment after CT 2013. "We would have won this game, if we also have a played a 30-over match,we would have hit the same 261 runs in 30 overs only because we are 20-20 champions and we would have defeated pakistan' Funny, isn't it.....All the teams are champions some point of time, Game will go their way on their day. - Fan of Samuels ( Watched Samules blistering 116* notout in Vijayawada in his early days of year 2002)

  • POSTED BY Gagananand66 on | July 22, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    Cant the cricket boards schedule matches as per weather conditions. Same thing happened with almost every match in Champions Trophy.

  • POSTED BY Naseer.HKG on | July 22, 2013, 8:11 GMT

    come on samuels ! ...don't cry foul , they way they were batting Pak would have won the match anyway, they scored at an average of 6.30 overall and 9.30 per over after the rain....there was something different in pak players attitude from the start of their batting in this match.

  • POSTED BY SNIFFLEATHER on | July 22, 2013, 8:17 GMT

    Samuels is painted as a sore loser here - but that would be incorrect, he merely stated a fact - the game would have been different. Credit to the tourists who did what they needed to do to win, but once again, the weather ruined the game.

  • POSTED BY on | July 22, 2013, 8:37 GMT

    Pakistan should play like that more often, it proves that when they are aggressive that they are a very talented batting side. We have got high quality players but they need to regain their confidence. I also agree with Khurram S Chaudhry.

  • POSTED BY Baundele on | July 22, 2013, 8:52 GMT

    Even after the rain it was West Indies' match to lose, and they successfully did that. Do not blame the rain, blame the captain who continued bowling by himself instead of Sammy.