The Great Australian side compared to the Talented and Incosistent Pakistan Side

[Swervy]

No, there are certain talents that are required for the limited-overs game, and certain ones for the First-Class game.
Some have both, some have one and not the other.

again..its down to one definition of talent I guess

 

[Richard]

Talent = the ability to do something.
For instance - to play a form of cricket.

 

[username1234]

Yeah I thought pakistan could have been a much better side they are now,If they would have been consistent With the team that you have mentioned.what a talented team The pakistani was back in the 2000,With young rich talented youngsters like razzaq and afrid and with so much stroke play saeed anwar amir soahil and inzimam ul ha,then great bowling attack,wasim akram,waqar younis,shoaib akhtar,That was the reason why india couldnt beat them back then,There was so much talent That they would have had a chance winning againts australia,

they played australia during that period and lost 3 tests and only won one out of 6 odi's.

 

[Swervy]

Talent = the ability to do something.
For instance - to play a form of cricket.

there you go..for me it is the ability to play cricket.

 

[Richard]

Yes, exactly - but there isn't just one type of cricket.

 

[Swervy]

Yes, exactly - but there isn't just one type of cricket.

no..but as I have said, the fundamentals are the same

 

[Richard]

No, one or two things are the same.
But there are all sorts of things that are different.

 

[Swervy]

No, one or two things are the same.
But there are all sorts of things that are different.

but those one or 2 things make up probably the most important aspects of the game

 

[Richard]

No, they just make-up the things that if you don't have them you're no use at all.

 

[Beleg]

This is probably the new record for going on a tangent - you folks didn't even wait for the fifth post.

 

[honestbharani]

Pakistan have always had outrageously gifted players. Shame they never seem to make the best use of their abilities. Of course, there are some glorious exceptions but still...... I, for one, thought that Pakistan would defeat Australia in the 99 WC final and to see them go down without even a fight.....God, I cannot even imagine how hurt the Pak fans would have been.... Same with India this last WC. But I still felt Pak had more chance against Aus in the 99 WC finals than India did in 2003.

 

[aussie]

aussie

Pakistan have always had outrageously gifted players. Shame they never seem to make the best use of their abilities. Of course, there are some glorious exceptions but still...... I, for one, thought that Pakistan would defeat Australia in the 99 WC final and to see them go down without even a fight.....God, I cannot even imagine how hurt the Pak fans would have been.... Same with India this last WC. But I still felt Pak had more chance against Aus in the 99 WC finals than India did in 2003.

agreed totally

 

[tooextracool]

Graeme Hick, Mohammad Kaif, Ajit Agarkar, Geirant Jones, James Kirtley, Michael Vaughan, VVS Laxman, Roger Twose, Jacques Rudolph Mahela Jayawardene

hick, kaif, vaughan, laxman, rudolph, twose and jayawardhene all had the potential to succeed in both forms of the game.
agarkar wasnt anything special in either.
geraint jones is hardly anything special in tests either.
kirtley??????

 

[Swervy]

This is probably the new record for going on a tangent - you folks didn't even wait for the fifth post.

it hasnt gone off on a tangent though

 

[Richard]

Pakistan have always had outrageously gifted players.

Well... not quite so much ATM...
(And the few they do have seem to be exceedingly injury-prone)

 

[Richard]

hick, kaif, vaughan, laxman, rudolph, twose and jayawardhene all had the potential to succeed in both forms of the game.
agarkar wasnt anything special in either.
geraint jones is hardly anything special in tests either.
kirtley??????

Kirtley has had 1 very, very good Test - and he's only had 2 bad ones, too.
Whereas in ODIs he's been one of the most abysmally poor bowlers ever picked.
I don't, personally, think Jayawardene, Vaughan or Laxman have much potential in ODIs - they're far too orthodox, ground-stroke-orientated and boundary-reliant. Just like Slater. Even though, in Tests, all 4 are generally quick scorers.
I don't think Rudolph is very likely to make a Test-class player (despite the fact he still averages over 40 at three - and given that he's an opener I don't really think anyone would expect much of him at five and six), I don't doubt Twose should have done better in Tests than he did but sadly he didn't.

 

[Richard]

This is probably the new record for going on a tangent - you folks didn't even wait for the fifth post.

I'm sure if you dug really deep you could find some more.
Title-topics are generally a pretty short-lived thing - a page or so (with the obvious exception of *Official* threads).

 

[tooextracool]

Kirtley has had 1 very, very good Test - and he's only had 2 bad ones, too.

yes on an absolute disaster of a pitch. no surprise that he didnt do much in the first inning of the same test though. really for you to use someone who isnt even capable of making the test side, as an example of someone who had potential in one form and not in the other is quite ludicrous. if kirtley is ever test class i'll be extremely surprised.

I don't, personally, think Jayawardene, Vaughan or Laxman have much potential in ODIs - they're far too orthodox, ground-stroke-orientated and boundary-reliant. Just like Slater. Even though, in Tests, all 4 are generally quick scorers.

i really doubt that, i find it hard to believe that someone can be capable of scoring quickly in more dificult conditions in test matches and then not be capable in ODIs unless they have a mental barrier, which all of those people undoubtedly had. jayawardhene really has a mental barrier whenever he plays away from home- tests and ODIs.

I don't doubt Twose should have done better in Tests than he did but sadly he didn't.

exactly, hence the 'potential'.

 

[Richard]

yes on an absolute disaster of a pitch. no surprise that he didnt do much in the first inning of the same test though. really for you to use someone who isnt even capable of making the test side, as an example of someone who had potential in one form and not in the other is quite ludicrous. if kirtley is ever test class i'll be extremely surprised.

So will I; I never said he really had much potential in Tests (though on a green seamer I can think of plenty I'd prefer not have). Simply that he was far, far better in Tests than in ODIs.

i really doubt that, i find it hard to believe that someone can be capable of scoring quickly in more dificult conditions in test matches and then not be capable in ODIs unless they have a mental barrier

Why on Earth not? Scoring quickly in ODIs is far more difficult than doing it in Tests, in Tests you can just keep smacking boundaries on the ground mostly; in ODIs you've got to
a) hit it in the air lots to get boundaries (outside the first 15) and
b) be good at working it around for singles
Otherwise you haven't got a prayer in ODIs.

which all of those people undoubtedly had. jayawardhene really has a mental barrier whenever he plays away from home- tests and ODIs.

I hardly think so - sure, he has a mental problem away in Tests, but his technique also contributes to his overseas problems at times.
In ODIs he's just poor full-stop; less than 1\3 of his ODIs have come at home, and he's only ever had 3 good series plus a good score in his 2nd ODI and that unbeaten century against England.
Indeed, he's only had a short good period in ODIs; after 49 games his average was 22; in the next 46 he averaged 46 (48 at home, 45 away); then since April 2002 he's averaged 26 in 82.

 

[tooextracool]

So will I; I never said he really had much potential in Tests (though on a green seamer I can think of plenty I'd prefer not have). Simply that he was far, far better in Tests than in ODIs..

because theres so much proof of that isnt there? and whatever way you wanna look at it, it doesnt change the fact that he was complete garbage and had about as close to 0 potential in either form of the game as we've ever seen.

Why on Earth not? Scoring quickly in ODIs is far more difficult than doing it in Tests, in Tests you can just keep smacking boundaries on the ground mostly; in ODIs you've got to
a) hit it in the air lots to get boundaries (outside the first 15) and
b) be good at working it around for singles
Otherwise you haven't got a prayer in ODIs.

not really, you dont have to hit the ball in the air all the time, drive the full ball, cut the wide ball and pull the short ball and you'll be more than successful in ODI cricket. i certainly dont think a player like fleming is better at hitting the ball in the air or rotating the strike than vaughan. same goes with martyn and many other players.
regardeless both vaughan and slater are both capable of hitting the ball in the air and vaughan is more than capable of working it around for singles.

I hardly think so - sure, he has a mental problem away in Tests, but his technique also contributes to his overseas problems at times.

and what technical problem is this? hes looked pretty good technically if you ask me, much the same way that attapattu has looked pretty good technically and still had a poor record against quality teams.