Worst #1 Bowling Attack

[M0rphin3]

The last test Taufeeq Umar played before the South African series was in 2006; Mohammad Hafeez was playing after a long time as well (And I think Salman Butt would have done okay, the pitches would have suited him). Younis Khan is class, but he was making a comeback after sixteen months; Asad Shafique and Adnan Akmal were making their debuts. Fair point on Dale Steyn.

Look, I can see merit in the don't-read-too-much-into-two-test-matches argument, but what I don't buy is the "oh, the pitches were roads argument". Like G.I Joe said, that makes it sound as if the world's best bowling attack can only perform in conditions that suit them.

Salman has a terrible record except against maybe Aussies. And Younis had some practise ODI series before tests to adapt to the conditions, not big deal for a player like him. Asad Shafique replacing an out of form Umar Akmal and same with Adnan replacing Kamran. So overall the squad might be inexperienced, but they got rid of some horribly out of form players, that makes the team in a way better.

And don't take that point in isolation. How are they supposed to bowl in such slow tracks with no assistance? Once the ball gets older there was nothing in the pitch, they just needed to play the waiting game which they did. And 2 test series is too small a sample size. So lets not exaggerate and make it sound like it was a simple task for SA to run through the Pak side.

 

[Xuhaib]

Their bowling was damn good, equally good, if not better than that of the home teams. Their batting however, was pathetic. In the matches they won, they did it by putting in the opposition, getting them out for a low 1st innings score and controlled the match from there. Even then, they nearly ****ed up some simple chases.

yeah I know batting was probably one of the worst ever seen in England but still the over all results were not disgraceful, until you are really awesome you will struggle to win away test matches. England has won just one test of 17 in sub cont during the last decade Aus is 0-4 in India over the past 2 series, so to achieve a 2-4 with this batting line is actually an achievement ofcourse what happened when the series ended did put a different spin to things.

 

[Blaze 18]

Salman has a terrible record except against maybe Aussies. And Younis had some practise ODI series before tests to adapt to the conditions, not big deal for a player like him. Asad Shafique replacing an out of form Umar Akmal and same with Adnan replacing Kamran. So overall the squad might be inexperienced, but they got rid of some horribly out of form players, that makes the team in a way better.

And don't take that point in isolation. How are they supposed to bowl in such slow tracks with no assistance? Once the ball gets older there was nothing in the pitch, they just needed to play the waiting game which they did. And 2 test series is too small a sample size. So lets not exaggerate and make it sound like it was a simple task for SA to run through the Pak side.

So did Dale Steyn. Asad Shafique was not replacing an out-of-form Umar Akmal if I recall correctly. He made his debut in the second test, one in which Umar Akmal also played.

As for "how are they supposed to bowl in such slow tracks with no assistance" - I am sorry, they have to.

 

[Xuhaib]

the track in UAE was not too dissimilar to the one at Centurion apart from the first day.

 

[Blaze 18]

Nah, I wouldn't go that far to be honest. There was a lot more pace and bounce at Centurion.

 

[M0rphin3]

So did Dale Steyn. Asad Shafique was not replacing an out-of-form Umar Akmal if I recall correctly. He made his debut in the second test, one in which Umar Akmal also played.

As for "how are they supposed to bowl in such slow tracks with no assistance" - I am sorry, they have to.

Styen did play, but only the last 2 ODIs. And coming back from an injury is not exactly the same as lacking match practice tbh. Umar Akmal's been pretty dire offlate except a pointless 50 in an already lost test match in England. Don't remember when he last scored a ton. Anyways far off from the point.

 

[akilana]

Some numbers :

Pakistan lost eight wickets for forty-six runs in the second innings of the first test.

Pakistan were bowled out for ninety in the first innings of the second test, and lost nine wickets for thirty-five runs in the second dig. The Sri Lankan pitches were not that bad, come on guys.

Jeez, I am struggling to get my point across here. I have successfully managed to confuse myself

Jokes aside, what I am trying to say is that the fact that Pakistan managed to draw the series against South Africa (despite missing a number of players) should be held against South Africa. People shouldn't just make excuses for South Africa and say, "hey, those pitches were too flat, no team could have won". It is akin to me making excuses for India's first innings collapse at Centurion

They bowled better than the scorecard would show but dropped too many catches on the last day. I see most people bring up things like SA didn't bowl out Pakistan in the flattest of pitches and how it should be held against them.. How about India failing to bowl out NZ twice in conditions they're very familiar with?

 

[centurymaker]

They bowled better than the scorecard would show but dropped too many catches on the last day. I see most people bring up things like SA didn't bowl out Pakistan in the flattest of pitches and how it should be held against them.. How about India failing to bowl out NZ twice in conditions they're very familiar with?

But it's more about the series result than individual tests.

 

[akilana]

But it's more about the series result than individual tests.

really? how do you win test series without winning individual tests?

Both teams failed to bowl out the opposition in two tests and the difference being one was playing it in their backyard. SA didn't have more than two tests to win the series.

 

[silentstriker]

I was just wondering if India's bowling attack of

Sreesanth
I Sharma
Unadkat
Harby
and Raina/Tendulkar

is the worst ever bowling attack fielded by a #1 Test team. Surely has to be right up there, would also be interesting to see if someone can dig out the worst batting lineup by a #1 team.

Yes

 

[vcs]

really? how do you win test series without winning individual tests?

Both teams failed to bowl out the opposition in two tests and the difference being one was playing it in their backyard. SA didn't have more than two tests to win the series.

Yeah, it's fair enough. But India are known to have an ordinary attack regardless of conditions.

 

[Blaze 18]

They bowled better than the scorecard would show but dropped too many catches on the last day. I see most people bring up things like SA didn't bowl out Pakistan in the flattest of pitches and how it should be held against them.. How about India failing to bowl out NZ twice in conditions they're very familiar with?

Who said it shouldn't be held against India ? That has no relevance to the discussion at hand, however. South Africa's performance should be held against them because they have the world's best bowling attack (or so people say).

As for your point about dropped catches - that is no excuse, fielding is an integral part of cricket. Besides, if you want to argue that they bowled better than what the scorecard suggests, then equally, they batted far worse than what the scorecard suggests (second test in particular). The umpiring was absolutely abysmal in that game - at least dropped catches were South Africa's fault, Pakistan had no control over the umpiring.

 

[Faisal1985]

am I the only one who thought that Pakistan was not dire in England yes they lost 4 but then how many sub cont teams go and win 2 test matches in England especially with this batting line up.

Far from dire, Pak played typical Pakistan test cricket imo ...batting was meant to be like that even if we had the likes of YK, Inzi, MoYo in the middle order...they are no gurus of seeming conditions anyways. Bowling on the other hand was typical Pak bowling triggering massive collapses and some superb swing bowling at high pace.

 

[Faisal1985]

Quite weak?
Taufeeq Umar>>Salman Butt, Anyone really>Farhat, Younis Khan>>>Umer Amin. Only guy they missed was Yousuf but they still had Younis. That's much stronger than the NZ squad which toured India. And Steyn was coming back from an injury too tbf.

Disagree. Butt on a flat track is much better then Toufee

 

[akilana]

because they have the world's best bowling attack (or so people say).

I don't think people say that they have the best bowling attack in the world. What people say is that they have the best fast bowling duo in the world. It's probably England that has the best attack. You said in this thread couple of times that you don't think that their attack is nothing write about if you take out Steyn. Given the pitch and Steyn coming from injury, I think they couldn't have done any better. Taking into Steyn's success on roads and in India, I think we should give more credit to Pakistan than anything.

As for your point about dropped catches - that is no excuse, fielding is an integral part of cricket. Besides, if you want to argue that they bowled better than what the scorecard suggests, then equally, they batted far worse than what the scorecard suggests (second test in particular). The umpiring was absolutely abysmal in that game - at least dropped catches were South Africa's fault, Pakistan had no control over the umpiring.

I agree fielding is a big part and they have no excuse for that but that wasn't the point of this thread. We were talking about the potency of the attack. SA bowlers did create chances but the fielders dropped too many to win the match. It was not the bowling but the fielding that cost them more often. Not winning definitely counts against them but I don't think bowling was their problem.

I agree umpiring was absolutely abysmal but both teams were beneficiaries equally.

 

[Blaze 18]

I don't think people say that they have the best bowling attack in the world. What people say is that they have the best fast bowling duo in the world. It's probably England that has the best attack. You said in this thread couple of times that you don't think that their attack is nothing write about if you take out Steyn. Given the pitch and Steyn coming from injury, I think they couldn't have done any better. Taking into Steyn's success on roads and in India, I think we should give more credit to Pakistan than anything.

Again, I never said that Pakistan should not be given credit. On the contrary, it is the posters using the they-only-drew-because-of-road-pitches argument who are not giving Pakistan enough credit.

As for England having a better attack - I dunno, it is debatable I suppose. I would say Dale Steyn tilts the balance in South Africa's favour. And yes, if you take Steyn out their attack is not great : Morkel has yet to prove himself in conditions that don't suit him; Paul Harris is okay, nothing great; Jacques Kallis is not a bowler who would give a batsman sleepless nights. I said that because someone argued that India's bowling attack is utter rubbish without Zaheer Khan and, frankly, that is true. However, I wanted to point out that every team's bowling attack becomes much weaker if you take out its best bowler.

I agree fielding is a big part and they have no excuse for that but that wasn't the point of this thread. We were talking about the potency of the attack. SA bowlers did create chances but the fielders dropped too many to win the match. It was not the bowling but the fielding that cost them more often. Not winning definitely counts against them but I don't think bowling was their problem.

That was the crux of the argument at first. I only brought up their bowling when posters tried arguing that no team could have won on those pitches.

I agree umpiring was absolutely abysmal but both teams were beneficiaries equally.

Disagree. AB de Villiers got half a million lives before he crossed thirty, and he went on to nearly make a triple century. Jacques Kallis also got a couple of lives if I recall correctly. The decisions that did go in favour of Pakistan were far fewer in number, and they were of no use really because they got them when South Africa were well and truly on top (Smith and Peterson in the second innings of the second test match if I recall correctly). Even in the first test Pakistan got the raw end of the deal, both in terms of the number of incorrect decisions and the timing of the same.

 

[zaremba]

Australia 1938

Mervyn Waite
Stan McCabe
Bill O'Reilly
Chuck Fleetwood-Smith
Syd Barnes
Lyndsay Hassett
Don Bradman


Pretty good batting line-up. Problem is, that was their bowling attack. Bill O'Reilly obviously stands out and Chuck F-S was competent but as for the rest, genuine cannon fodder. The result? 903-7.

 

[morgieb]

Australia 1938

Mervyn Waite
Stan McCabe
Bill O'Reilly
Chuck Fleetwood-Smith
Syd Barnes
Lyndsay Hassett
Don Bradman


Pretty good batting line-up. Problem is, that was their bowling attack. Bill O'Reilly obviously stands out and Chuck F-S was competent but as for the rest, genuine cannon fodder. The result? 903-7.

Every bowler was cannon fodder back then, though.

 

[GotSpin]

Every bowler was cannon fodder back then, though.

Not really. There was still a large number of bowlers that averaged in the 20s in the 1930s 1940s. I've posted a list before

 

[Athlai]

Yes

Bout ****ing time you answered.

Thread closed.