In Delhi we call it “Tukka” :
US beat Portugal, Mexico
South Korea beats Italy
Sengal beats France
and believe it or not…
Pakistan beats Australia
Flukes take the fun out of Sports !! What say…
thats coz Pak is bette than Australia
waccha gonna do
tell me
waccha gonna do when .......... runs wild on you?
Kiyon chilli mere payre, kissi nay teeli day dee?
Another jealous Indian... Beating the Aussies with a substantial margin must be called a 'tukka' in India, since their team loses matches with heavy margins, and to please themselves, they call it 'tukkas'
Pak won two matches, not one... So get ur jealous a$$ outta here...
the fact is I dont wanna talk about Pak an India and compare them lekin as for tukkas I would like to say:
acc ording to my research Tukkas AKA flukes are reffered to when something happens suprisingly which as Chilli mentioned was
[quote]
US beat Portugal, Mexico
South Korea beats Italy
Sengal beats France
[/quote]
but when something happens surprisingly it happens only once but if the same thing occurs twice then it is not called fluke and therefor Pak beating Australia (world champs, far more better and experienced than India) twice that means that Pakistan did not play a fluke play and if they can beat Australia twice consecitively than they can beat India more than 10 times consectively and therefore please remove Pakistan beating Australia from your so called tukka list.
thank you
[This message has been edited by khiska hoowa (edited June 21, 2002).]
Actually in sports there is no tukka or fluke, because cricket is about 50 overs long and you can't just suddenly win in just one moment, it takes a long time and thats what Pakistan did.
In football, scoring a goal can be fluke but making a world class team like France go without a goal for whole 90 mins is not something called tukka or fluke.
Teamwork and hardwork win matches you mentioned above which your country's cricket team doesn't have.
The only tukka in sports world rightnow is India still having their test status, so fix that first before coming back.
Pakistan Ka matlab Kya?
La Illaha Illalah!
Hindustan Ka Matlab Kya?
Ham Ko kya, Bhatr mai Ja!
[This message has been edited by UMAIR316 (edited June 21, 2002).]
The only point of this post was that he could not stomach Pakistan's victory and had to come here and try and prove it was a fluke.
Instead of saying it was tukka he could have called it by a better name SOUR GRAPES
Pak beat Australia FLuke?`?! Haha man. Jealous?!
“WatCh youR tHoughtS; they become words.
WatCh youR wOrdS; they become actions.
WatCh youR aCtiOns; they become habits.
WatCh youR hAbiTs; they become character.
WatCh youR chaRactEr; it becomes your dEsTinY."
I am sure if you had faced any of Shoaib Akhtar’s deliveries u wouldn’t have called it a fluke…he took 5 wickets in the final, were those all flukes???
chilli, answer that if you have the guts to…
[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited June 22, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Spock (edited June 22, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Spock:
**
chilli, answer that if you have the guts too... **
[/quote]
lolz..well said!!
[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited June 22, 2002).]
Chilli’s Chadi is wet
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smash.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hula.gif
TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT AT ME
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hula.gif
[This message has been edited by Pakistani Tiger (edited June 22, 2002).]
[quote]
Chilli's Chadi is wet
[/quote]
Its Dhoti friend, not chady.
Pakistan Ka matlab Kya?
La Illaha Illalah!
Hindustan Ka Matlab Kya?
Ham Ko kya, Bhatr mai Ja!
I will let the dhoti and chaddi stuff pass...
I think someone above also said that since one day cricket is a game of 50 overs each side, it cannot be won by fluke... This is what I call PUI... Posting Under the Influence i.e...
For the record , at one time I used to be a die-hard cricket follower... and then one find day it dawned upon me that one-day cricket is just too much prone to "flukes" for my taste... and really any team can win on any given day unless there is an extremely big gap in the stength (talent wise) between two sides...
Cases in point :
1983 - India winning the WorldCup after scoring 183 runs in the final (60 overs game) against the invincible(at that time) West Indies.
1991 - Pakistan winning the worldcup after almost crashing out of it in the league stage (48 all out against England when rain saved the day for Pak - giving it one point to remain in the tournament).In the league matches Pakistan's performance was pathetic.If it means anything, it even lost to India... hardly a strong side.
1999 - Bangladesh defeating Pakistan in the WorldCup.
Cricket can also hardly be said to be a team game... one player loses his wicket by mistake/luck/bad decision... his contribution to his team's innings gets over immediately...no second chance... and if he happens to be a Sachin Tendulkar/Brian Lara he often takes his team's chances with him to the pavillion i.e. a team loses early wickets and more often than not they can kiss the match goodbye.... and there are the external factors.. pitch, weather, umpiring decisions... etc. etc..
Atleast in soccer.. all players are involved for the total duration of the game... if Ronaldo misses a goal.. he doesn't immediately go out of the field to warm the bench... but plays on...and has a chance to make amends in the remaining duration of the match.. What I am getting at is one single moment does not alter the course of the game as it does in Cricket..
However the current Soccer World Cup proves that there can be flukes in soccer too only that they are few and far in between....
My expectation from any sporting event is that the better side should win. When I say "better side", I mean the better side during the course of the match. Take for example the recent US-Mexico match... the ball was in possession of Mexico for atleast 70% of the match but who won ... US... and suddenly the US media is telling us that the US soccer team has come of age... and that they will become world-beaters.... etc. etc.. give me a break folks... didn't this team lose 2-0 to Poland and really would not have got into the second round if South Korea had not defeated Potugal.
And so in cricket.. Pakistan defeats Australia in two consecutive matches (one of which was very close by the way)... suddenly the Pakistanis are the no. 1 side in Cricket...... they lose one match.. and they are nothing more than a bunch of match-fixers... Shoaib Akhtar is just a regular chucker, Inzamam is an "aaloo" who can't run.. so on and so forth.....
[This message has been edited by chilli (edited June 22, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by chilli:
**I will let the dhoti and chaddi stuff pass...
I think someone above also said that since one day cricket is a game of 50 overs each side, it cannot be won by fluke... This is what I call PUI... Posting Under the Influence i.e...
For the record , at one time I used to be a die-hard cricket follower... and then one find day it dawned upon me that one-day cricket is just too much prone to "flukes" for my taste... and really any team can win on any given day unless there is an extremely big gap in the stength (talent wise) between two sides...
Cases in point :
1982 - India winning the WorldCup after scoring 183 runs in the final (60 overs game) against the invincible(at that time) West Indies.
1991 - Pakistan winning the worldcup after almost crashing out of worldcup (48 all out against England when rain saved the day).In the league matches Pakistan's performance was pathetic.If it means anything, it even lost to India... hardly a strong side.
1999 - Bangladesh defeating Pakistan in the WorldCup.
Cricket can also hardly be said to be a team game... one player loses his wicket by mistake/luck/bad decision... his contibution to his team's innings gets over immediately...no second chance... and if he happens to be a Sachin Tendulkar/Brian Lara he often takes his team's chances with him to the pavillion i.e. a team loses early wickets and more often than not they can kiss the match goodbye.... and there are the external factors.. pitch, weather, umpiring decisions... etc. etc..
Atleast in soccer.. all players are involved for the total duration of the game... if Ronaldo misses a goal.. he doesn't immediately go out of the field to warm the bench... but plays on...and has a chance to make amends in the remaining duration of the match.. What I am getting at is one single moment does not alter the course of the game as it does in Cricket..
However the current Soccer World Cup proves that there can be flukes in soccer too only that they are few and far in between....
My expectation from any sporting event is that the better side should win. When I say "better side", I mean the better side during the course of the match. Take for example the recent US-Mexico match... the ball was in possession of Mexico for atleast 70% of the match but who won ... US... and suddenly the US media is telling us that the US soccer team has come of age... and that they will become world-beaters.... etc. etc.. give me a break folks... didn't this team lose 2-0 to Poland and really would not have got into the second round if South Korea had not defeated Potugal.
And so in cricket.. Pakistan defeats Australia in two consecutive matches (one of which was very close by the way)... suddenly the Pakistanis are the no. 1 side in Cricket...... they lose one match.. and they are nothing more than a bunch of match-fixers... Shoaib Akhtar is just a regular chucker, Inzamam is an "aaloo" who can't run.. so on and so forth.....
[This message has been edited by chilli (edited June 22, 2002).]**
[/quote]
He claims ->
Pakistan won the world cup in 1991
Pakistan were all out for 48 against England in 1992
U DONT HAVE TO LIE TO PROVE YOUR POINT...
Your Indian team lost twice against Kenya, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
Our league performance in two matches wasnt good in 1992, england and India, and you have these two matches as your basis of argument. Youre saying just becoz India (which otherwise has a terrible record against Pakistan) beat us in 1992, they should be the world champs? haha That means we should be the world champs in 1999 as well as we defeated Australia in the league match... OYE CHILLI, did you see Shoiab bowling that day, was that a fluke? Go and face a ball from shoiab, and then when i see you with your nuts in a basket, ill ask you if it was a fluke or not.
[This message has been edited by Spock (edited June 22, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited June 22, 2002).]
Ok It may have been 1992... big deal....
I like to call a spade a spade pal. I know the Indian cricket team are a bunch of much-hyped about temperamentally weak losers...and I am not ashamed of saying so...
As for that world cup which Pak won... let me just tell you that had it not rained that day in the league match against England(Pak were all out for less than 50 runs)... Pakistan would be still looking for its first world cup victory... the Paki team would have been welcomed home by eggs and tomatoes instead of the red carpet that was rolled out for them...
too bad you still dont get the point.....
[This message has been edited by chilli (edited June 22, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited June 22, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Spock:
**
Youre saying just becoz India beat us in 1992, they should be the world champs? **
[/quote]
I would like to know where I said that...
Stop imazining things.... I know truth hurts but give it a chance...... read my post with an open mind...
chilli; then what would you prefer? A match that has been decided even before its played? I dont see any real point in your post. Watching a match when the ending has already been predicted is hardly worth any excitement. :)
Mahiwal... apparently I have not done a good job of explaining myself...
Predictability is the last thing I want....
What I want is :
(1)Victory on performance alone not on luck or divine intervention. Make it difficult for "flukes" to happen. For example penalty shootout in Soccer is all about luck.It also brings a team game to individual level.Do away with it.
(2)In certain games (eg. Cricket) where luck and external factors often decides the outcome... the result of a few matches should not be banked upon to gauge the ability of a team. Only good/bad performances over an extended period of time should be interpreted for judgement.
[This message has been edited by chilli (edited June 22, 2002).]
[quote]
Originally posted by chilli:
**Ok It may have been 1992... big deal....
I was expecting some rational logic in your reply... but its nothing more than the usual Paki anti-Indian diatribe... cow piss et al.
I like to call a spade a spade pal. I know the Indian cricket team are a bunch of much-hyped about temperamentally weak losers...and I am not ashamed of saying so...
As for that world cup which Pak won... let me just tell you that had it not rained that day in the league match against England(Pak were all out for less than 50 runs)... Pakistan would be still looking for its first world cup victory... the Paki team would have been welcomed home by eggs and tomatoes instead of the red carpet that was rolled out for them...
too bad you still dont get the point.....
[This message has been edited by chilli (edited June 22, 2002).]**
[/quote]
You dodo, Pakistan already got out, except that it was not 48 like youre saying... Learn something about cricket before mocking our team... Youre mixing it up with another match...
Do you think that that performance in the third match was a fluke? Admit it, youre just plain jealous... We played alot better than them, and our bowling attack was alot better than theirs... Our batting wasnt upto the mark, but Akram made sure we got enough on the board. If our team didnt have the talent like youre saying, it wouldnt have made more than 50 runs or stay on the wicket for 50 overs... So get your jealous a$$ outta here...
And yes, Shoaib akhter bowling at that speed, no one can face him, be it Srinath or the aussies...
[This message has been edited by Spock (edited June 22, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Spock (edited June 22, 2002).]