KP in subcont

[GIMH]

The whole team was pretty gash in Pakistan, if we didn't have Flintoff we'd have been annhilated

edit - that being said, Tresco played a great dig first up, and Colly & Bell had a couple of decent scores (can't remember how good the innings actually were tbh)

 

[Richard]

Bell's century in the Second Test was woeful, he must've had about 4 let-offs. Pietersen had 1, as I mentioned above. Collingwood did play well in the Third Test but he also had let-offs which meant he got a few more than he should've done. Think his first-chance scores were 50-odd and 70-odd, or so, from memory. Trescothick's highest first-chance score was 50; he made 48, 48 and 50 in the first-innings' and 5, 0 and 0 in the seconds.

England and Pakistan were both by-and-large very poor that series really - Pakistan, however, had enough moments of sheer inspiration to end-up with a comfortable victory. Only Inzamam-ul-Haq's batting and Flintoff's bowling stood-out from the morass of paucity. Both sides' catching was shocking (nothing new for Pakistan of course) and that cost both of them dearly, and as I say the batting was possibly even worse. Had catching and Umpiring been up-to-scratch there'd only have been about 3 centuries (Salman Butt in the First Test; Inzamam once not twice in the Second; and Kamran Akmal in the Third), 1 one-fifty and precious few 50s even. Which, given there was, as I say, virtually nothing in the pitches for bowlers of any kind and only Flintoff and Shoaib of sufficient skill with swing to take the pitch out of the equation was a diabolical effort from all batsmen bar Inzamam.

With hindsight, I really hate that series. It was error-strewn, constantly fallible from both sides, but with moments of real brilliance. Exactly the sort of cricket I generally hate. England's previous series, which was of a very similar ilk, was constantly thrilling enough for me to forgive that, but that one wasn't.

However, the reality is that Pakistan could've won 3-0 and England could've won 1-0 without any particularly massive adjustments. If Pakistan had let England save the Third Test, which very nearly happened, then England's needless collapse in the fourth-innings in the First would've decided the series. Likewise, that Pakistan did eventually grab Third Test victory meant that they would've whitewashed had they managed to similarly finish-off England in the Second, which again at one point looked eminently possible.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, seem to remember MoYo playing a good innings as well, cbf to look it up though

 

[Richard]

He played decently in the first-innings Second Test, but was inestimably fortunate to score more than single-figures in the Third as Flintoff missed an eminently catchable slip chance. That cost England dearly, as had Vaughan's ridiculous reprieve of Afridi in the first-innings of the Second Test.

 

[Precambrian]

As the OP alluded to, I would be worried about this stat if KP was useless against spin, but he is one of the finest players of it around. I think he'll be okay; can see him scoring a big one for the team next time out.

As far as I know, the Sri Lanka and India (last time) series are the only ones he's played in his whole Test career where he hasn't tonned up, quite impressive really.

I disagree with that. KP is hardly a good player of spin leave alone one of the finest. He had some success against Murali and Warne but those were in non-assisting pitches. Don't forget that even a rookie like Chawla had considerable success over him.

Well, KP has played in the subcontinent only in SL and Ind, and his performances haven't been upto the scratch.

 

[GIMH]

I disagree with that. KP is hardly a good player of spin leave alone one of the finest. He had some success against Murali and Warne but those were in non-assisting pitches. Don't forget that even a rookie like Chawla had considerable success over him.

Hardly a good player of spin? The pitches that he played well against Warne on were hardly 'non-assisting'; Warne took 12 wickets at The Oval in 05, KP had no problems against Warnie there (IIRC the chances that were missed came off McGrath).

Honestly, I'd have to look in more depth at his overall record of spin before going into more detail here. But I am not the only person on these forums who holds such an opinion, am I?

Well, KP has played in the subcontinent only in SL and Ind, and his performances haven't been upto the scratch.[/QUOTE]

He has played in Pakistan as well. Did you miss the last 10 posts?

 

[Richard]

I disagree with that. KP is hardly a good player of spin leave alone one of the finest. He had some success against Murali and Warne but those were in non-assisting pitches. Don't forget that even a rookie like Chawla had considerable success over him.

Well, KP has played in the subcontinent only in SL and Ind, and his performances haven't been upto the scratch.

Warne and Murali don't need responsive pitches to be hugely dangerous though. There was precious little real turn in any of the surfaces in 2005 and 2006 (Edgbaston and Old Trafford in the former and Trent Bridge in the latter excepted) yet both bowlers still posed huge problems to all batsmen - including Pietersen of times.

Pietersen played Warne beautifully in 2005 and his innings at Edgbaston in 2006 was one of the most sensational you're ever likely to see, the difference between the two sides and how. Only Lara - just once, in 2003 - has ever played Murali like that and been successful.

I don't remember Chawla doing much, bothering Pietersen or anything else, in his 1 Test in 2005/06, as he barely bowled and was a shocker of a selection. Nor do I remember any other spinners posing massive problems to Pietersen by turning the ball, even if they occasionally have done by benefiting from the slowness of the pitch, which the seamers did in equal measure.

I don't neccessarily think Pietersen is one of the best players of spin going around - yet at any rate - as he's too often caught in two minds, unsure which of the methods (he's equally adept at defence and attack) to use. But he's certainly a damn good one, and potentially I do think one of the best you'll see. He has all the tools - excellent reach, damn good footwork both forward and back, the ability to play expansive and defensive strokes, the ability to defend both with bat and pad together and with bat only depending on the type of bowler, and an eagle-like eye for variations.

 

[Richard]

Hardly a good player of spin? The pitches that he played well against Warne on were hardly 'non-assisting'; Warne took 12 wickets at The Oval in 05, KP had no problems against Warnie there (IIRC the chances that were missed came off McGrath).

I don't actually think The Oval 2005 was that much of a turning surface TBH, Giles barely got a ball off the straight and nor I don't think would any other fingerspinner. Warne, being a wristspinner, can simply turn it on anything.

However, you're absolutely right that the missed chance didn't come off Warne. He dropped it himself! Off Brett Lee.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, there was another missed chance as well though IIRC - obv I knew Warne dropped that one!

But anyway, the point I was trying to make was basically the same one you did make but you went into much more detail, ie Warne (& Murali) doesn't need an assisting pitch, my point being that if he took 12 wickets it can hardly be considered a surface that he struggled with.

 

[Uppercut]

In Sri Lanka, incidentally, what Pietersen had trouble with (and to an extent this also applied in the following series in New Zealand) was the slowness of the surfaces rather than any turn.

Bingo. KP played far too early and often lobbed the ball to midwicket or mid-on. M Jayawardene's fields to him were inspired too, but the slowness of the pitches certainly came into account.

He could have conquered it in any case, but he had some rotten luck in that series. At one stage he was run out at the non-striker's end by the bowlers-hand-onto-stumps, and at another he got one of the beastliest bouncers i've ever seen from Malinga.

The funny thing is, he still has an excellent record in ODIs in the subcontinent. Perhaps he tries to time the the ball in tests and struggles to, whereas in ODIs he watches the ball onto the bat and hits it hard. Or, perhaps, as Dicko suggested, it's all just a coincidence.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, there was another missed chance as well though IIRC - obv I knew Warne dropped that one!

There was, by Katich at mid-on (he didn't even get to it, but started to run at the ball absurdly late), but I forgot who the bowler was and couldn't find it after a quick look at the CricInfo BBB, so didn't mention it.

There was also of course the n\o 1st ball despite a massive appeal, but that was a correct decision and therefore not a let-off. Some people still try to link it in with the Warne drop though, for some bizarre reason.

 

[Richard]

He could have conquered it in any case, but he had some rotten luck in that series. At one stage he was run out at the non-striker's end by the bowlers-hand-onto-stumps, and at another he got one of the beastliest bouncers i've ever seen from Malinga.

Seem to remember an incorrect "out" decision somewhere too. Can't be complaining about the bad luck after the crazy amount of good he had early in his career, but it was misfortune as much as the fact that the series was in the subcontinent that made that SL series so bad for him.

 

[GIMH]

Aye, obviously not a let-off, but my heart was actually popping out of my mouth when the ball was caught. Scariest moment EVER.

 

[Uppercut]

Seem to remember an incorrect "out" decision somewhere too. Can't be complaining about the bad luck after the crazy amount of good he had early in his career, but it was misfortune as much as the fact that the series was in the subcontinent that made that SL series so bad for him.

Yeah, remember something like that too. Still, we don't know whether he'd have scored in those innings had he stayed in, so we can't really consider them.

 

[Richard]

But being bad-luck-ed out is completely different to being genuinely got out. It's akin to coming to the wicket with 15 runs required to win, or just before a declaration, in every innings. What little you've been given the chance to do you've done well, so even if you haven't had any notable success, nor have you failed.

 

[Beleg]

Bell's century in the Second Test was woeful, he must've had about 4 let-offs. Pietersen had 1, as I mentioned above. Collingwood did play well in the Third Test but he also had let-offs which meant he got a few more than he should've done. Think his first-chance scores were 50-odd and 70-odd, or so, from memory. Trescothick's highest first-chance score was 50; he made 48, 48 and 50 in the first-innings' and 5, 0 and 0 in the seconds.

England and Pakistan were both by-and-large very poor that series really - Pakistan, however, had enough moments of sheer inspiration to end-up with a comfortable victory. Only Inzamam-ul-Haq's batting and Flintoff's bowling stood-out from the morass of paucity. Both sides' catching was shocking (nothing new for Pakistan of course) and that cost both of them dearly, and as I say the batting was possibly even worse. Had catching and Umpiring been up-to-scratch there'd only have been about 3 centuries (Salman Butt in the First Test; Inzamam once not twice in the Second; and Kamran Akmal in the Third), 1 one-fifty and precious few 50s even. Which, given there was, as I say, virtually nothing in the pitches for bowlers of any kind and only Flintoff and Shoaib of sufficient skill with swing to take the pitch out of the equation was a diabolical effort from all batsmen bar Inzamam.

With hindsight, I really hate that series. It was error-strewn, constantly fallible from both sides, but with moments of real brilliance. Exactly the sort of cricket I generally hate. England's previous series, which was of a very similar ilk, was constantly thrilling enough for me to forgive that, but that one wasn't.

However, the reality is that Pakistan could've won 3-0 and England could've won 1-0 without any particularly massive adjustments. If Pakistan had let England save the Third Test, which very nearly happened, then England's needless collapse in the fourth-innings in the First would've decided the series. Likewise, that Pakistan did eventually grab Third Test victory meant that they would've whitewashed had they managed to similarly finish-off England in the Second, which again at one point looked eminently possible.

Re: the bolded part

Shoaib Akhtar's performance in the series was heads and shoulders above any other. I watched the whole series live and I don't think I've ever seen a more consistently sublime performance from any other bowler in a series.

edit: I love that series. It seperated the men from boys.

 

[GIMH]

Re: the bolded part

Shoaib Akhtar's performance in the series was heads and shoulders above any other. I watched the whole series live and I don't think I've ever seen a more consistently sublime performance from any other bowler in a series.

edit: I love that series. It seperated the men from boys.

Did you enjoy watching it with your one eye?

 

[Richard]

Re: the bolded part

Shoaib Akhtar's performance in the series was heads and shoulders above any other. I watched the whole series live and I don't think I've ever seen a more consistently sublime performance from any other bowler in a series.

edit: I love that series. It seperated the men from boys.

I don't think Shoaib was consistently excellent that series at all. As with his whole career, there were spells where he went missing for a while (either not bowling or bowling a heap of nonsense) and spells where he was deadly beyond the dreams of almost all bowlers. Of course, he was handicapped by the dropped catches, as were all of Pakistan's bowlers. But he overcame this of times as well by... yes, bowling inswing, as all Pakistani bowlers have learnt they simply have to do. The reason that series was better than most (though I don't think all) of his series' was because the good was much more regular than it often was for him.

And I can understand why someone would love that series because some people love error-strewn cricket but I'm not entirely sure how it sorted any men from boys. There was precious little in the way of "tough" stuff.

 

[GIMH]

Because Pakistan (men) beat England (boys), don't you see?

 

[Precambrian]

Warne and Murali don't need responsive pitches to be hugely dangerous though. There was precious little real turn in any of the surfaces in 2005 and 2006 (Edgbaston and Old Trafford in the former and Trent Bridge in the latter excepted) yet both bowlers still posed huge problems to all batsmen - including Pietersen of times.

Pietersen played Warne beautifully in 2005 and his innings at Edgbaston in 2006 was one of the most sensational you're ever likely to see, the difference between the two sides and how. Only Lara - just once, in 2003 - has ever played Murali like that and been successful.

I don't remember Chawla doing much, bothering Pietersen or anything else, in his 1 Test in 2005/06, as he barely bowled and was a shocker of a selection. Nor do I remember any other spinners posing massive problems to Pietersen by turning the ball, even if they occasionally have done by benefiting from the slowness of the pitch, which the seamers did in equal measure.

I don't neccessarily think Pietersen is one of the best players of spin going around - yet at any rate - as he's too often caught in two minds, unsure which of the methods (he's equally adept at defence and attack) to use. But he's certainly a damn good one, and potentially I do think one of the best you'll see. He has all the tools - excellent reach, damn good footwork both forward and back, the ability to play expansive and defensive strokes, the ability to defend both with bat and pad together and with bat only depending on the type of bowler, and an eagle-like eye for variations.

Referring to Chawla dismissing Kevin in the ODI series in England in 2007.