*Official* Pakistan in Australia

[pasag]

How much chance is there that the Aus team, or brains trust at least, are going to watch those games?

 

[Matt79]

Having watched Kamran Akmal bat against New Zealand, I hope Johnson and Siddle taget Kamran with the short ball, and Ponting set's a field for some short pitched bowling because he really looks like a walking wicket against short bowling at the body. Sure he might hit a four or six, but I would keep trying it, as he could just get himself out. Anyone remember Kamran getting out to Chris Martin at Napier with some sort back foot fend and spooned it to Guptil at point? And in Wellington Martin also smacked him in the head with a bouncer. I mean if you can't handle short pitched bowling from Martin, who is 10 years older then Siddle, and 7 years older then Johnson, and was never that fast to begin with, then how can he expect to cope with it from the Australians?

Just a question for the Pakistani fans, what is Faisal Iqbal like domestically? Is he really good, or is the bowling rubbish, or vice-versa? Especially in recent seasons. Otherwise having an uncle is all-time great with the bat always helps I guess. Especially in that it can trick selectors into thinking Oqbal will be Test standard one day. And if Imran Farhat can bat through an innings unbeaten, then you really do have problems.

I really can't see how Pakistan will win a Test.

A patented 'new Australia' batting collapse to Asif and Kaneria, combined with Johnson and Siddle having one of their bad days would do the trick tbh.

 

[pasag]

England to sue for infringement.

 

[Xuhaib]

How on earth is CA meant to tell Pakistan they can't add someone to their squad if they want to.

Hope Younis plays, for the sake of having as high a standard of play as possible.

The way Younis has acted in the last 3 months I hope he's not brought straight in to the side.If Pakisan has to improve there should be more discipline in the enire cricket setup preferential treatment for star players should be stopped.

 

[Xuhaib]

Craig,

Kamran is a very good puller of the short ball, infact Kamran is the best example of team Pakistan on his day he can look a million $$$ but most often he is a very frustrating player.3 glorious cover drives then nicks the exact same ball to the keeper.

 

[Craig]

How much chance is there that the Aus team, or brains trust at least, are going to watch those games?

If a bloke like me can spot something like that in Kamran's game, then how the hell can't those who are meant to be experts and were watching cricket before I was born? Either way Martin certainly did rattle Kamran enough to make him play that weird fend to point.

I also can't wait to see Aamer in action in Australia. I expect Ian Chappell will be singing his praises on how great will be, and start comparing him to Wasim Akram.

 

[Matt79]

The way Younis has acted in the last 3 months I hope he's not brought straight in to the side.If Pakisan has to improve there should be more discipline in the enire cricket setup preferential treatment for star players should be stopped.

You might be right - I'm commenting from the selfish perspective of a fan going along to this coming Boxing Day test, and watching the rest of the series on telly.

 

[Top_Cat]

Played 23 games for Pakistan with three fifties and a highest score of 77 to show for it as a middle order batsman in a career that ran parallel to Younis, Yousuf and Inzy. I'm not surprised he isn't in the team, although certain others have been given lots more faith after similar failings to be fair and he's always been an absolute gun domestically.

Thanks for the history lesson but I was more looking for insight from people in Pakistan who know why he's not even being considered.

 

[aussie]

Siddle has taken more than 1 wicket in an innings only once since his 5wi in England... If you take out that 1 spell in England he averaged just under 40...

Thats a very harsh way to look at how Siddle bowled in the Ashes. Yes he had his expensive spells but he was FAR better than Johson who was gash in the Ashes.

His bowling average against the WI was 70.66 with just 3 wickets.

You do remember he was playing injured during the WI series, especially the second test?

Bollinger averaged 19.84 with 13 wickets.

I dont really think it should be a contest as to who plays between those 2 on boxing day.

I dont think there is contest between them. If both are fit along with Hilfy & Johnson - all 4 seamers can play.

I thought Hauritz bowled pretty reasonably through the series and i cant see him being dropped unless the pitch particularly green.

It doesn't necessarily have to be on green pitch for him to be dropped. As i've mentioned before AUS can play all 4 seamers plus Watson & let North to the spin work fairly well in most conditons. If the South African of the 90s could play with an attack of Donald/Pollock/McMillan/Klusener/Kallis & not have real quality spinner - i see no reason why AUS currently cant do the same.

Hauritz should only play IMO on a real turner (every SCG test or when AUS tours the sub-continent).

 

[Burgey]

Dougy to be our leading wicket taker this series.

Dougy.

Dougeh.

 

[howardj]

Bogan alert.

EDIT

Dougeh

Not Burgey

 

[subshakerz]

It doesn't necessarily have to be on green pitch for him to be dropped. As i've mentioned before AUS can play all 4 seamers plus Watson & let North to the spin work fairly well in most conditons. If the South African of the 90s could play with an attack of Donald/Pollock/McMillan/Klusener/Kallis & not have real quality spinner - i see no reason why AUS currently cant do the same.

Hauritz should only play IMO on a real turner (every SCG test or when AUS tours the sub-continent).

I disagree. Unless you are the WI of the 80s and have 4 worldclass pacers and no decent spin option in reserve, you should almost always play a spinner (amybe not if the pitch is a green top). I can think of the following reasons:

-Opposition's traditional weakness against spin (playing a left armer against Pakistan, for example)

-Spinning pitch obviously

-Avoiding a slow overrate without resorting to part timers (at crucial moments especially)

-Being able to perform the dual stock and strike bowler task on dead wicket without risk of injury

-For nothing else, just adding variety to the attack which can look uniform

Look at the last test of the recent Ashes series as a example of how an all-pace attack can fall flat and the recent SA-England test as an example of how spinners play an unexpected role. And both Harris and Swann are around Haurtiz level.

Hauritz, while no matchwinner, is still a decent spin option who can tie the batsmen down and take the odd couple of wickets. I can understand as a Aussie fan how difficult it must be to see him in the side after a decade + of Warne and MacGill, but there are no better options.

 

[pasag]

I was a big supporter of this side playing four quicks but it's proven to be a ridiculous notion. North's been rather ineffective at this level, Hauritz has done the job and India and England have pwned us when we've tried. If Hauritz was keeping a superstar out of the side there'd be a case. But he's not.

 

[Nate]

Crayfishhhhhhh. Statistics mean nothing.

 

[aussie]

I was a big supporter of this side playing four quicks but it's proven to be a ridiculous notion. North's been rather ineffective at this level, Hauritz has done the job and India and England have pwned us when we've tried. If Hauritz was keeping a superstar out of the side there'd be a case. But he's not.

Well technically AUS did win in SA with 4-seamers (although McDoanld shouldn't have played). North's role in a 4-man attack will be to fill in overs, he is capable of getting wickets in test as showed in the Oval test.

 

[Top_Cat]

Well technically AUS did win in SA with 4-seamers (although McDoanld shouldn't have played). North's role in a 4-man attack will be to fill in overs, he is capable of getting wickets in test as showed in the Oval test.

He's been innocuous before or since that innings, had to plough through a ton of overs to get 4 poles and, because of that, failed with the bat. What he brings with the ball affects his batting too much to make it worth it.

 

[aussie]

I disagree. Unless you are the WI of the 80s and have 4 worldclass pacers and no decent spin option in reserve, you should almost always play a spinner (amybe not if the pitch is a green top).

So what was the SA attack in the 90s then?. That was just two WC seamers Donald/Pollock technically & very good all-rounders in McMillan/Klusener/Klusener & they won everywhere even the sub-continent with that attack.

I see similar potential in Hilfenhaus/Bollinger/Siddle/Johnson + Watson to do a similar job. The only thing stopping AUS from playing such a team is that ATM having had Warne & MacGill for the last 15 years, playing without a system just seems weird.

I can think of the following reasons:

-Opposition's traditional weakness against spin (playing a left armer against Pakistan, for example)

Well yes, AUS got away with Hauritz in England because of this. But i reckon quality players of spin like IND or SRI would smoke Hauritz. I have yet to see opposition batsmen really seen use to their feet to Hauritz in tests

-Spinning pitch obviously

Yes that why i said Hauritz (or Krejza) should play on every SCG pitch or when AUS tour the subcontinent. But at the same time if AUS play a 4-man attack + Watson in most conditions, it wouldn't really be one-dimentional. Given that Hilfenfaus & Watson really can reverse the ball along with Hauritz (he should this vs SA in last summers SCG test)

-Avoiding a slow overrate without resorting to part timers (at crucial moments especially)

This is indeed a risk. But this is one i am willing to take...

-Being able to perform the dual stock and strike bowler task on dead wicket without risk of injury

Could you elaborate on this slightly, im not 100% sure what you mean here. I dont want to misquote you

-For nothing else, just adding variety to the attack which can look uniform

No sense adding variety just for sake of variety. The variety Hauritz brings is no Warne. Plus as aformentioned if AUS play a 4-man attack, it wont be one-dimentional all 4 are totally different.

Its not like my ENG attack where they have a set of bowlers bowling at the same pace.

Look at the last test of the recent Ashes series as a example of how an all-pace attack can fall flat and the recent SA-England test as an example of how spinners play an unexpected role. And both Harris and Swann are around Haurtiz level.

Well technically as i mentioned before AUS won in SA with a 4-man pace attack. In the Ashes they only played a 4-man attack in the last 2 tests. They steamrolled ENG in one & lost the other.

The recent SA/ENG centurion test surface was helped by being a slow low wicket though. You really had to play a spinner in that test.

Hauritz, while no matchwinner, is still a decent spin option who can tie the batsmen down and take the odd couple of wickets. I can understand as a Aussie fan how difficult it must be to see him in the side after a decade + of Warne and MacGill, but there are no better options.

You know it mann!!

 

[Xuhaib]

It seems Gul is out of ther series with injury Malcom Sami a step closer to test recall.Aussies must be ****ting their pants at the prospect of facing Sami.

 

[Xuhaib]

expecting Aamir to break down aswell 6 tests in 8 weeks for fragile Pakistani bodies

 

[subshakerz]

So what was the SA attack in the 90s then?. That was just two WC seamers Donald/Pollock technically & very good all-rounders in McMillan/Klusener/Klusener & they won everywhere even the sub-continent with that attack.

SA in the 90s contrary to popular opinion rarely played the 4-man pace attack without a spinner, especially outside home. They usually had one of Symcox, Adams or Boje in the attack, none of them were Haurtiz level. Their two biggest victories in the decade in Pakistan in 97 and India in 2000 came through the vital contributions of both Symcox and Boje.

And I'm sure if they had a much better spinner they would have had a better chance of winning a series against Australia and in England, which they didn't.

Well yes, AUS got away with Hauritz in England because of this. But i reckon quality players of spin like IND or SRI would smoke Hauritz. I have yet to see opposition batsmen really seen use to their feet to Hauritz in tests

Still, against England, SA, WI and NZ, Hauritz can prove more than useful. And modern subcontinent batsmen arent all that flash against such spinners as they dont have the concentration they used to have.

Yes that why i said Hauritz (or Krejza) should play on every SCG pitch or when AUS tour the subcontinent. But at the same time if AUS play a 4-man attack + Watson in most conditions, it wouldn't really be one-dimentional. Given that Hilfenfaus & Watson really can reverse the ball along with Hauritz (he should this vs SA in last summers SCG test)

Most test wickets that can break down offer some degree of spin on the fifth day. And we've seen nowadays that spinning wickets aren't exclusive to the subcontinent.

This is indeed a risk. But this is one i am willing to take...

A major risk. Remember all the overrate issues that the WI had in the 80s, do you think that would fly nowadays? And the worst scenario would be having to bring on a part-timer due to the overrate and release pressure at key times in the match. Remember how Ponting lost in India? It's not like Australia's 4-man attack is guaranteed to dismiss the opposition cheaply and quickly like the WI in the 80s.

Could you elaborate on this slightly, im not 100% sure what you mean here. I dont want to misquote you

My point is that its a given that a team will face flat, dead wickets more than often nowadays. You need a bowler capable of doing the donkey work of bowling long spells and still managing to take wickets. Similar to what Kaneria did in Napier. If you ask each of your 4-man pace attack to bowl 40-50+ overs expect a total breakdown.

No sense adding variety just for sake of variety. The variety Hauritz brings is no Warne. Plus as aformentioned if AUS play a 4-man attack, it wont be one-dimentional all 4 are totally different.

It's better for the captain to have decent options rather than just the same. How often have we seen that the ball gets soft and the batsmen like the pacemen bowling to them. Then a spinner comes on and the batsmen suddenly have to work for it a bit.

Well technically as i mentioned before AUS won in SA with a 4-man pace attack. In the Ashes they only played a 4-man attack in the last 2 tests. They steamrolled ENG in one & lost the other.

Aus won in SA because of the strength of their 3-man attack (Johnson, Siddle, and Hilfy) and McDonald was pretty useless. You could have traded him for Hauritz and the result would have been the same. The 4th Ashes test was a pretty green wicket which justified the 4-man pace attack. It proved a liability in the next test.

The recent SA/ENG centurion test surface was helped by being a slow low wicket though. You really had to play a spinner in that test.

Only in hindsight. On the first day, the wicket looked green and spinners weren't expected to play a part. Goes to show you how spinners can be more useful than you think.