Pakistan's chances in England this summer

[Richard]

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.

Shoaib's ankle-injury had nothing to do with that, of course...

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

They're meaningless. Their main purpose is to prepare players for the Test series, and they're used to adjust to conditions - nothing else. As such, the best performances don't tend to go in warm-ups.

 

[Richard]

If you don't perform in (meaningful) warm-ups, your chances of performing in Tests are reduced.
That's fact.
As such, warm-up games are certainly not meaningless, they're very important, and at the present time their importance is greatly underestimated by a great number of people.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If you don't perform in (meaningful) warm-ups, your chances of performing in Tests are reduced.
That's fact.
As such, warm-up games are certainly not meaningless, they're very important, and at the present time their importance is greatly underestimated by a great number of people.

I'm not disputing the fact that if a team didn't have any warm-ups, they'd struggle, because they wouldn't have adjusted to the conditions.

But, they're only important to adjust to conditions. No-one really cares about the result.

 

[Richard]

That's a MOO - some would be highly embarrased to lose to a team generally seen as massively inferior (see England vs Aus "A" 1998\99 for instance - created a huge amount of tension as England were seen to have gifted victory on a plate for the sake of match-practice).
The result isn't, obviously, as important as those of the Tests\ODIs, but equally - as I've said about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, individual performance = team peformance, and as such if you lose it means many of your players are likely to have performed poorly and this does matter.

 

[Tom Halsey]

as such if you lose it means many of your players are likely to have performed poorly and this does matter.

A lot of these percieved poor performances are due to batsmen having had a fair time at the crease, so they start to tee-off to let some of the others have a go. This can often lead to percieved collapses.

In some cases, there is cause for concern, but not normally.

 

[Richard]

Not so - most of the time I'm referring to players getting out in single-figures.
If players want to let others have a go they usually retire - by playing a load of slogs you can hit yourself out of form or into bad habits. Check it - there are loads of retirements in tour-games.
Poor performances I'm referring to, as I say, is when players score no runs and spend no time at the crease.

 

[IndianByHeart]

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

Munaf has bowled well once.

.

The same Akhtar with whome the Indian batsmen toyed in all the three matches that they played???

And you will get one more test match to see of Munaf, and i think "mercy" will be the word that will be comming out of English batsmen while facing him

 

[tooextracool]

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.

poor shots happen yes, but theres only an extent to which it is tolerable. AFAIC,getting out with poor shots with frequency on dead flat wickets is always unacceptable

There were also a lot of unplayable balls.

oh come on how many were there? the pitches for all the games were horribly flat and slow, hence most of what was bowled by Akhtar was negated by the pitch. i dont remember too many unplayable deliveries(except the naved special that swung both ways on the same ball), and i certainly dont remember many of which getting the England batsmen out.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

again were england to be dismissed for 300 odd, which was what could so easily have happened were Dravid to have no taken the new ball, there would be plenty for concern. Over the last few years, England have been fortunate that someone has managed to bail their side despite screwing up, now its getting them in trouble.

 

[Jono]

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 still remember thinking the jaffa cake was a poo

 

[tooextracool]

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.

you take that into account for every average. no one eliminates tail enders and just looks at top order when considering averages. given those batting paradises i can assure you that bettering or maintaining your career average is a job well done, but England helped them out a fair bit too.

And Shabbir is a chucker so I don't see the relevance of that..

that is no excuse IMO. he doesnt throw firebolts because he chucks, nor does he do something completely original.

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..

what is your point? the fact that Englands batsmen have managed to get themselves out to that kind of rubbish only backs my point. and watch the game and decide for yourself how many wickets that fell to him were jaffers, because i guarantee you you'd find very very few.

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

you're being quite short sighted then. AFAIC England have struggled equally against both spin and pace, but the worst part about them is that all of them have succumbed to throwing their wickets away.

 

[honestbharani]

70-30 England. With Shoaib, it is 65-35 England for me.

 

[Richard]

I can't help being extremely worried by the prospect of a Shoaib-Asif-Kaneria attack.
Just imagine if Shabbir can sort-out his action. Then they really would have some attack, with that batting-line-up.

 

[aussie]

Shoaib's ankle-injury had nothing to do with that, of course...

umm didn't this anke injury occur after the 3rd test vs India was over?

 

[Tom Halsey]

you take that into account for every average. no one eliminates tail enders and just looks at top order when considering averages.

That was done a lot in the Murali v Warne average.

 

[Tom Halsey]

what is your point? the fact that Englands batsmen have managed to get themselves out to that kind of rubbish only backs my point. and watch the game and decide for yourself how many wickets that fell to him were jaffers, because i guarantee you you'd find very very few.

There were some poor shots on the first day of the 1st test where Pathan was rubbish yet we still got out to him, but since then he's bowled some absolute jaffers.

 

[Tom Halsey]

that is no excuse IMO. he doesnt throw firebolts because he chucks, nor does he do something completely original.

It means he can swing it both ways, very accurately, in the mid 130s.

 

[Tom Halsey]

again were england to be dismissed for 300 odd, which was what could so easily have happened were Dravid to have no taken the new ball, there would be plenty for concern. Over the last few years, England have been fortunate that someone has managed to bail their side despite screwing up, now its getting them in trouble.

That's got nothing to do with Sreesanth taking 4 wickets.

4/96 is not worrying.

 

[Tom Halsey]

oh come on how many were there? the pitches for all the games were horribly flat and slow, hence most of what was bowled by Akhtar was negated by the pitch. i dont remember too many unplayable deliveries(except the naved special that swung both ways on the same ball), and i certainly dont remember many of which getting the England batsmen out.

Akhtar was bowling very quickly, fully, and swinging it both ways (not a huge amount but enough).