Pakistan's chances in England this summer

[Tom Halsey]

have you been preoccupied during the winter?

heres a quick recap of what happened just for you:
mohommad asif destroys us in the warm up game
shoaib akthar was leading wicket taker in pakistan
munaf patel destroys us in warm up game
shree santh takes 4 wickets in the first innings of the first test
munaf destroys us in the 2nd test

im sorry but we just cant bat period.

I don't care about warm-up games.

Shoaib is very, very good, and he'd have destroyed anyone in that form.
Sreesanth took 4 quite expensive wickets.
Munaf has bowled well once.

I'm not convinced.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't care about warm-up games..

i dont either, but its a worrying factor when a trait from the warm ups follows up in the internationals is it not?

Shoaib is very, very good, and he'd have destroyed anyone in that form.

thats rubbish and you know it. form or no form, to struggle against any bowler on those placid pitches is quite disgraceful, and if you were watching the series, it wasnt even unplayable quick bowling, it was just England playing poor shots and being incapable of playing slower balls.

Sreesanth took 4 quite expensive wickets..

expensive? 4/96 given that wicket was hardly expensive, and it would have been a lot worse had collingwood and harmison not bailed england out.

Munaf has bowled well once.

I'm not convinced.

well it would be twice with the warm up game.
as far as Im concerned, what really matters is that almost every pace bowler that played in those 2 series bettered their career average by playing against England. In Pakistan naved averaged 32, shabbir averaged 19, and even sami averaged in the 30s(quite impressive figures given those wickets). even in India bowlers of the lowest quality like irfan pathan have caused England problems.

 

[Armadillo]

Wow, someone got told.

 

[DanielFullard]

I think a fully fit England side will beat Pakistan over the course of the series maybe 2-0 or 3-0. But we cant count on having all of our players fit can we. It will be an interesting series of matches actually and a good prepartion for the trip down under

 

[Tom Halsey]

thats rubbish and you know it. form or no form, to struggle against any bowler on those placid pitches is quite disgraceful, and if you were watching the series, it wasnt even unplayable quick bowling, it was just England playing poor shots and being incapable of playing slower balls.

Yes there were some poor shots, but poor shots happen. I certainly don't remember being worried about the amount of poor shots against Shoaib.

There were also a lot of unplayable balls.

 

[Tom Halsey]

expensive? 4/96 given that wicket was hardly expensive, and it would have been a lot worse had collingwood and harmison not bailed england out.

It's hardly worrying either.

It's respectable, but not cause for concern.

In every innings, there's usually some respectable figures, even if the total is 400-plus.

 

[Tom Halsey]

well it would be twice with the warm up game.
as far as Im concerned, what really matters is that almost every pace bowler that played in those 2 series bettered their career average by playing against England. In Pakistan naved averaged 32, shabbir averaged 19, and even sami averaged in the 30s(quite impressive figures given those wickets). even in India bowlers of the lowest quality like irfan pathan have caused England problems.

Any average of over 30 is not worrying to me, because there's always the tail to throw in, and with England it has a habit of disappearing very cheaply. And Shabbir is a chucker so I don't see the relevance of that.

Irfan Pathan's bowling can best be summed up by Neil's comment a while ago of 'pie pie pie pie jaffer pie pie pie pie jaffer'. He's bowled some rubbish, but he's bowled some unplayable balls.

I was far more worried by our inability to play Danish in Pakistan. And Kumble is already causing huge problems.

 

[Sanz]

Irfan Pathan's bowling can best be summed up by Neil's comment a while ago of 'pie pie pie pie jaffer pie pie pie pie jaffer'.

I must say English batsmen are a very hungry bunch.

 

[aussie]

thats rubbish and you know it. form or no form, to struggle against any bowler on those placid pitches is quite disgraceful, and if you were watching the series, it wasnt even unplayable quick bowling, it was just England playing poor shots and being incapable of playing slower balls.

very good point, England admitedly haven't batted well as a team in the sub-continent & that fact is shown up by the fact that when India went to Pakistan on the same type of pitches they played shoaib fairly well.

 

[Tom Halsey]

very good point, England admitedly haven't batted well as a team in the sub-continent & that fact is shown up by the fact that when India went to Pakistan on the same type of pitches they played shoaib fairly well.

That is a good point, and I didn't see the series so won't comment.

However, I maintain that Shoaib bowled a fair few unplayable deliveries against England, as well as some poor shots.

EDIT: And on checking some stats I was very surprised to find that Kaneria averaged 36 against England - I thought it was far better.

 

[Richard]

The "blueprint for cricket" written after '99 must've have included ODI's then. I must say I'm jolly happy at where we find ourselves in the test arena, and am pretty indifferent to our positon in the limited-overs format.

I can fully understand people asking questions though, IIRC up until '96 we weren't too bad, and almost always won the Texaco/Natwest series', and we probably won the '97 pre-Ashes series too.

Where did it all go wrong.

In reality it started to go wrong in 1993 - England were almost always highly competetive in World Cups, especially in 1987 and 1992 (final both times).
Things were disguised by the fact that England's Texaco Trophy form in 1994, 95, 96 and 97 was still excellent - 3 home ODIs was nowhere near enough, and that it was considered so was all part of the problem as well as contributing to it's lack of solving. I care equally about both game-forms but I'm certainly not disappointed if we lost ODIs, indeed if anything I'm more disappointed when we win, because it papers over the cracks and we lurch ever closer to the World Cup.

 

[Richard]

Yet we nearly could've had one had Dravid accelerated a bit earlier ...

And if we'd started bowling down leg nothing would've come of.
Chasing 6-an-over in Tests over any serious length of time is NOT realistic.

 

[Richard]

Bit of a Younis Khan fan aren't you Richard?

Certainly have been since his return to the side in 2004 - until then he'd by-and-large exasperated me. But since then he's been magnificent, no other word.
Mind, so was VVS Laxman Kolkata2001-SCG2004, and now we find ourselves facing the terrible prospect of his career ending wholly unfulfilled.

 

[Richard]

probably a converted one because not long ago he was calling for his head.

That'd probably be in ODIs - I've never rated him in ODIs and probably never will, but in Tests he's been magnificent of late, and I always thought he had potential, just up to 2003 never realised it or really looked like doing so.

 

[Richard]

How were England the better side in the 2nd test, when they was a good chance they were going to lose, were it not for KP and Flintoff standing tall? Yeah they got a 2nd innings lead (thanks to the ridiculous run out of Inzy) but they were 4-20 in their 2nd innings at one stage! A loss was on the cards until England fought hard for the draw.

And regarding the 1st test, they lost that because as simple as it was, they couldn't chase on the last day. If you dominate 3 days of cricket, set yourselves up in a winning position and then throw it away by not being able to chase 198, then you didn't play good cricket, becaue test cricket isn't solely about 1) an innings lead or 2) dominating the first few days, its about making the killer blow when you need to. England didn't do that, Pakistan did.

The 2-0 scoreline summed up the series well. Put it this way, in 2 of the 3 tests, on day 5 England had no chance of victory, Pakistan did. The only time England ever had a chance of winning the test on the last day was the first, and Pakistan had a chance of winning that (and obviously did) too.

England had a great chance going into day-five of the Second Test, you might have had to be English or at least in England to realise that (note the MIGHT). Yes, there were times in that Test where Pakistan were on top but either team certainly could have won it (and one, obviously, almost certainly would given more playing-time). Pakistan finished the Test on top but had England polished-off the tail in the morning session we could easily have been chasing a perfectly attainable target, rather than ending-up with backs-to-the-wall.
At Multan England dominated 3 days, and competed perfectly well enough on the fourth. No two ways about that. And given England's record in the previous 21 months, it'd be pretty fanciful to suggest they were likely to collapse chasing a target. Indeed, at several points it was looking comfortable. However you paint it, England were the better side in the First Test. No two ways about that IMO. It was utterly unexpected for pretty much everyone that the collapse happened as it did.
Yes, at Lahore Pakistan utterly dominated everything from the 2nd session. The fact that this was the last act of the series IMO distorts it - because, like it or not, most recent is best remembered. Even then, had England managed to hold onto the draw things would've been wholly different. It would then have been possible to say without question that a single 2 sessions' bad cricket lost the series.
There were many patterns that this series distorted IMO, and as such it's not one I'll recall with much fondness.

 

[Richard]

it wont? The batting has been poor the moment England dropped Thorpe, and it hasnt changed since.

I'd argue that it was poor from the series before that - only Strauss' extraordinary form bailed us out in South Africa, and Flintoff's runs in the Fifth Test masked a very poor series.
Even the 2 series before - it's hard to say that against that woeful calibre of bowling there was much convincing evidence of anything.
IMO it was the retirement of Hussain and, to a lesser extent, the absence of Butcher (for all sorts of reasons) that made the biggest difference.

 

[Richard]

I don't care about warm-up games.

Then you're extremely unwise.
I don't care about 15-a-side warm-up games, or charity tour-openers, but there's no denying that warm-up games DO make a difference if played properly and seriously.

 

[Richard]

I think a fully fit England side will beat Pakistan over the course of the series maybe 2-0 or 3-0. But we cant count on having all of our players fit can we. It will be an interesting series of matches actually and a good prepartion for the trip down under

How patronising is that?
The Pakistan series is equally important as The Ashes and if we fail to win either there's absolutely no way we can be considered the best side in The World - exactly as in 1971.

 

[Richard]

Any average of over 30 is not worrying to me, because there's always the tail to throw in, and with England it has a habit of disappearing very cheaply. And Shabbir is a chucker so I don't see the relevance of that.

Irfan Pathan's bowling can best be summed up by Neil's comment a while ago of 'pie pie pie pie jaffer pie pie pie pie jaffer'. He's bowled some rubbish, but he's bowled some unplayable balls.

I was far more worried by our inability to play Danish in Pakistan. And Kumble is already causing huge problems.

Kumble causes most people huge problems, mind, on those sorts of pitches (wasn't too troublesome in Nagpur).
Pathan has hardly bowled many outstanding deliveries in this series, and his accuracy hasn't been the worst either. As far as I'm concerned Pathan is an extremely average bowler, who's been made to look like he's something resembling Test-class by the fact that games are classified "Test" which shouldn't be.

 

[Richard]

I must say English batsmen are a very hungry bunch.

Anyone who likes Jaffa Cakes needs their head (and tongue) examining.