KP in subcont

[Precambrian]

I am arguing that KP didnt have his moments against Murali and Warne. However Warne has almost equal dominance over Kevin as well.

I was bit of surprised to see so many spinners in the list of bowlers who have dismissed him most.

Bowler			Span		Mat	Dis	bwd	c fie	c wk	st	lbw	hw	Mat/Dis	Ave	0s	
B Lee (Aus)		2005-2007	10	6	0	4	2	0	0	0	1.66	53.66	0	
M Muralitharan (SL)	2006-2007	6	6	0	3	0	0	3	0	1.00	43.83	0	
SK Warne (Aus)		2005-2007	10	5	2	2	1	0	0	0	2.00	22.80	0	
GD McGrath (Aus)	2005-2007	8	5	1	1	1	0	2	0	1.60	48.80	1	
DL Vettori (NZ)		2008-2008	6	4	0	3	0	0	1	0	1.50	26.25	0	
Danish Kaneria (Pak)	2005-2006	7	3	1	2	0	0	0	0	2.33	7.33	0	
S Sreesanth (India)	2006-2007	5	3	1	1	1	0	0	0	1.66	51.66	0	
RP Singh (India)	2007-2007	3	3	1	0	0	0	2	0	1.00	55.33	0	
A Kumble (India)	2006-2007	6	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	3.00	47.00	0	
Mohammad Sami (Pak)	2005-2006	6	2	0	1	1	0	0	0	3.00	77.00	0	
WPUJC Vaas (SL)		2006-2007	6	2	0	1	0	0	1	0	3.00	79.50	0	
DJ Bravo (WI)		2007-2007	4	2	0	1	0	0	0	1	2.00	147.00	0	
CD Collymore (WI)	2007-2007	4	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	2.00	17.50	0	
CH Gayle (WI)		2007-2007	4	2	0	1	0	0	1	0	2.00	68.50	0	
PL Harris (SA)		2008-2008	4	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	2.00	53.50	0	
JH Kallis (SA)		2008-2008	4	2	0	1	1	0	0	0	2.00	8.50	0	
Z Khan (India)		2007-2008	4	2	0	1	1	0	0	0	2.00	20.50	0	
Naved-ul-Hasan (Pak)	2005-2005	2	2	0	1	1	0	0	0	1.00	38.00	0	
SR Tendulkar (India)	2006-2008	7	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	7.00	41.00	0	
SR Clark (Aus)		2006-2007	5	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	5.00	1.00	0

 

[Richard]

However well you play bowlers, they're going to get you out if they face you often enough. On the KP-vs-Murali score, I'd say Murali is probably in the lead, though Pietersen certainly had the edge on Warne in the two series' they played. The reason Pietersen is credited with playing Murali well is because he did so, brilliantly, in the first 2 Tests (the 2nd especially) in which he faced him. Even though he's not done much against him since then, precious few if any batsmen have come-off not just best but spectacularly best in their first 2 encounters with a Murali who was an established Test bowler (ie, from about 1996 onwards).

Vettori has got Pietersen out a few times, but I'd not say Vettori has actually been the main factor in this - I'd argue it's been far more to do with the pitches. And not that they've turned; simply the speed of them. On a turning surface with pace and bounce, I'd back Pietersen to have an at worst relatively even-handed record against Vettori.

And as of the others, none of them mean all that much for mine. Getting someone out once or twice isn't a massive deal. I'd get Don Bradman out if I bowled enough deliveries at him.

 

[Richard]

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

Ah, I see. Well, ODIs are an altogether different matter really. The requirements of a batsman are totally different in the shorter form, and sometimes you will get out a few times to the same bowler without particularly expecting him to trouble you in a Test, due to the demands of speed of scoring in the ODI format.

 

[wpdavid]

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.

iirc the other time KP was dropped at the Oval was by Tait at fine leg off the bowling of Lee. It was in that extraordianry spell soon after lunch, when KP took the attack to Lee rather than stand around and be pinged. The drop was almost missed by some comentators because of what was going on. It was a hard chance, possibly a diving one, but a chance nonetheless iirc.


EDIT
Here it is ..
42.4 Lee to Pietersen, FOUR, another short one, another pull, Tait goes late and dives for it but cannot hold onto that

 

[nightprowler10]

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.

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.

Haha, good memories. First Test series I ever watched all the way through. Yeah Inzi and Freddie were standouts but I feel you're selling Shoaib short by not including him in that list. Kaneria should also get a special mention for his ability to take advantage of the pitch in the first and third Tests, his performance was exactly what was missing in the second Test and undeniably cost us a win (along with the weather).

Back on topic, KP was average in that series. He threw away his wicket far too often and only made the ton after a couple of let offs IIRC.

P.S: MoYo was grassed by Freddie at 12*, went on to make 223.

 

[nightprowler10]

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.

I don't understand. Shoaib went missing a few times sure, but Freddie went missing for whole innings, first inning of the second Test and the third Test, Harmison was the only one who bowled with any venom in the latter, yet you rate Flintoff higher than Akhtar in that series?

 

[nightprowler10]

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

Not sure what he meant of course, but I don't see the series in as bad a light as Richard either. Sure there were dropped catches, but what series involving Pakistan and England doesn't. Besides the horrible runout decision Inzi got, the umpiring was rather normal for a Test match IMO. Between Shoaib, Freddie, Harmison, Kaneria, and Naved-ul-Hasan (2nd Test) I think we saw some great bowling. Inzi, Butt and Yousuf provided some great batting performances. Biggest disappointment of course was England's batting, even then I loved how they saved the second Test with Akhtar steaming in full force, but I don't see how just that one aspect ruins a whole series.

 

[Migara]

Yeah KP is being hailed as the new Viv, so its only natural that people will over analyze him.

So that explains why he's better against pace than spin

 

[Migara]

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.

In the case of Murali, he got the shock of Pietersen's play in his first few outings. Heroics like his reverse swept six off Murali became lesser and lesser when Murali got used to his technique and style of play. In his last outing he ws well and truely struggling against Murali, His antics and sledging did spur up all the Lankans and when you get usually very docile guys crancked up, you are asking for trouble, and that's what has happened to Pietersen in his last SL tour.

 

[Richard]

Not at all. Pietersen is not upto scratch against spin in supporting conditions. He is not capable of batting against the slow low bounce. Anyway lets take that to the relevant thread.

Indeed.

The thing is, slowness and lowness are far from confined to the subcontinent, nor is every ground in the subcontinent noted for producing slow, low surfaces. I don't feel Pietersen is not up to facing the turning ball - Warne and Murali, as I've mentioned, don't need supporting conditions to turn the ball and he's struggled a fair bit against Vettori on surfaces that haven't really turned at all.

This is why I don't feel you can simply say that Pietersen is poor in the subcontinent.

 

[Richard]

In the case of Murali, he got the shock of Pietersen's play in his first few outings. Heroics like his reverse swept six off Murali became lesser and lesser when Murali got used to his technique and style of play. In his last outing he ws well and truely struggling against Murali, His antics and sledging did spur up all the Lankans and when you get usually very docile guys crancked up, you are asking for trouble, and that's what has happened to Pietersen in his last SL tour.

And to an extent in the Trent Bridge Test of the 2006 tour as well.

There's certainly something in what you say. Precious few people have tried playing Murali as Pietersen did (and with damn good reason - most people'd last 5 minutes or less if they tried) and it wasn't surprising that it took him by surprise. Like most excellent bowlers, though, he found an answer eventually.

 

[Richard]

Haha, good memories. First Test series I ever watched all the way through. Yeah Inzi and Freddie were standouts but I feel you're selling Shoaib short by not including him in that list. Kaneria should also get a special mention for his ability to take advantage of the pitch in the first and third Tests, his performance was exactly what was missing in the second Test and undeniably cost us a win (along with the weather).

I don't understand. Shoaib went missing a few times sure, but Freddie went missing for whole innings, first inning of the second Test and the third Test, Harmison was the only one who bowled with any venom in the latter, yet you rate Flintoff higher than Akhtar in that series?

I guess I'd be selling Shoaib's bowling short by suggesting Flintoff's was a level above it TBH. Certainly Inzamam's batting was comfortably more impressive than either, and certainly every bowler aside from Shoaib and Flintoff lacked the skill to take the very, very unfriendly pitches out of the equation. But I guess you couldn't possibly expect anyone, Shoaib or Flintoff, to bowl effectively every time on such surfaces.

Kaneria, though, that's another annoying thing for me. I hate to see a bowler bowl rubbish for ages then get something at the end of the game. Whether it was the pitches finally starting to dust-off a bit or whether it was just him upping his game I don't know, but it's just not something I enjoy seeing. I enjoy seeing bowlers whose put-in throughout a game is rewarded throughout a game, not someone whose 80% nonsense is punished, then 20% excellence makes it look like all's been good throughout.

 

[Richard]

Not sure what he meant of course, but I don't see the series in as bad a light as Richard either. Sure there were dropped catches, but what series involving Pakistan and England doesn't. Besides the horrible runout decision Inzi got, the umpiring was rather normal for a Test match IMO. Between Shoaib, Freddie, Harmison, Kaneria, and Naved-ul-Hasan (2nd Test) I think we saw some great bowling. Inzi, Butt and Yousuf provided some great batting performances. Biggest disappointment of course was England's batting, even then I loved how they saved the second Test with Akhtar steaming in full force, but I don't see how just that one aspect ruins a whole series.

Dropped catches, for me, are huge. I don't think that'd surprise many people. I absolutely hate to see a series dogged by dropped catches. Whether that's common in England-vs-Pakistan or not, I hate it every new time it happens.

I don't neccessarily think the Umpiring was much worse than normal either, but there were undoubtedly some decisions that grated: Trescothick's n\o on 48 where he ended-up with 190; Inzy's run-out which was more farcical than neccessarily big-impacting; Collingwood's massive nick off Shoaib that Hair or whoever it was somehow missed; and I'm sure there were 1 or 2 others as well.

It was particularly annoying to see average players like Trescothick, Yousuf and Afridi be given reprieves that enabled them to score significant runs. Bell and Pietersen's stand saw some really fairly diabolical batting that should never, ever have resulted in such a big stand.

 

[Precambrian]

Indeed.

The thing is, slowness and lowness are far from confined to the subcontinent, nor is every ground in the subcontinent noted for producing slow, low surfaces. I don't feel Pietersen is not up to facing the turning ball - Warne and Murali, as I've mentioned, don't need supporting conditions to turn the ball and he's struggled a fair bit against Vettori on surfaces that haven't really turned at all.

This is why I don't feel you can simply say that Pietersen is poor in the subcontinent.

Am not saying all subcontinental pitches are alike. However the certain basic traits remain the same. Which include general low bounce, which gets lower and variable as the test match progresses, and assist spin from about Day 3 onwards. In Sri Lanka, the pitches are nearly homogenous, and tailormade for spinners to wreak havoc, although Murali takes it to a different level altogether there.

In Pakistan he was troubled by Danish Kaneria, who again, was unfortunate to get a few roads which has led to almost derailment of his career, but he is a force to reckon with when the conditions suit him.

In India, pitches can be broadly be classified into two types. 1. The road - like Chennai earlier this year, or 2. Traditional spin-assisting grounds which offer some incentive to pacers the first day. Exceptions occur like Ahmedabad 08 or the Nagpur 04, but they are rare. Pietersen has done reasonably well on pitches that suit the first type, like in Nagpurr 06. He has also done ok when batting first on the 2nd type of pitch, like Mohali, but failed in the second innings, a feat he repeated in Mumbai.

 

[Richard]

In Pakistan, it generally seems to me that the standard pitch is a rank road. It's quite common to see a whole series, or the best part of one, go by without a surface that offers bowlers of any kind anything.

The Pakistan-England series of 2005/06 was one such thing. Those pitches couldn't have been begging more to have mountains of runs scored on them, and apart from Inzamam-ul-Haq, no-one took the opportunity, and many (apart from those who had their good fortune, like Trescothick, Bell and Mohammad Yousuf) failed completely.

I don't think Pietersen's failure that series (and it was a failure - despite his series average being non-disastrous, his only score of note involved a let-off on 50\60-odd) showed anything other than that he didn't bat very well in that series, not that he was troubled by the sort of surface served-up.

As I say, he certainly has struggled of times in India and Sri Lanka with the slowness of the surfaces (regardless of whether they've turned much or not) but that's certainly not confined to those countries. He's struggled with the same sorts of surfaces elsewhere (England and New Zealand, for instance), and he's struggled against both spin and seam on them.

 

[Precambrian]

In Pakistan, it generally seems to me that the standard pitch is a rank road. It's quite common to see a whole series, or the best part of one, go by without a surface that offers bowlers of any kind anything.

The Pakistan-England series of 2005/06 was one such thing. Those pitches couldn't have been begging more to have mountains of runs scored on them, and apart from Inzamam-ul-Haq, no-one took the opportunity, and many (apart from those who had their good fortune, like Trescothick, Bell and Mohammad Yousuf) failed completely.

I don't think Pietersen's failure that series (and it was a failure - despite his series average being non-disastrous, his only score of note involved a let-off on 50\60-odd) showed anything other than that he didn't bat very well in that series, not that he was troubled by the sort of surface served-up.

As I say, he certainly has struggled of times in India and Sri Lanka with the slowness of the surfaces (regardless of whether they've turned much or not) but that's certainly not confined to those countries. He's struggled with the same sorts of surfaces elsewhere (England and New Zealand, for instance), and he's struggled against both spin and seam on them.

The thing is that he get pitches of his liking, with certain bounce, somewhere down the line in England and other places, where he can cut loose and make good his failure on such pitches, which are generally rare. However such pitches are norm, like in the subcontinent, he is going to struggle, and is hard to make up for. He'd do well to devote a full IPL season here, like Watto did, and learn the nuances to play on such surfaces. He is too good a player to be missing out because of a problem in technique like that.