Pakistan Cricket

[Goughy]

1988 when we almost beat the Windies in their backyard or 1996 when we beat England away and I think Atherton commented that we were the best team at that moment. Although obviously your point still stands that we didnt really dominate.

Late 80s would have been the best bet, but its hard to say they were better than WI.

They did beat England in 96, but had just lost to Aus and Sri Lanka. Also around that time, South Africa beat them home and away. They were better than England but in the 90s that on its own doesnt count for much

 

[Glacier]

Late 80s would have been the best bet, but its hard to say they were better than WI.

They did beat England in 96, but had just lost to Aus and Sri Lanka. Also around that time, South Africa beat them home and away. They were better than England but in the 90s that on its own doesnt count for much

Yeah they were horribly inconsistent and probably fairly corrupt round the 90s. I gave that series as an example because it seemed then that we would probably take off and really dominate but it all sort of fell away after that.

The 80s team of Pakistan is underrated because they genuinely challenged West Indies throughout and that '88 series would have been a 2-0 series win had it not been for some incompetent umpiring.

 

[Goughy]

The 80s team of Pakistan is underrated because they genuinely challenged West Indies throughout and that '88 series would have been a 2-0 series win had it not been for some incompetent umpiring.

Without a doubt that mid-late 80s team is generally underrated.

They went 10 series undefeated. However, they also played some pretty dull cricket.

In those 10 consecutive undefeated (5 drawn) series (31 games) they only won 9 games.

Amazing efficiency, but still a way behind the domination of WI and cant really be classed at the same level. Would be tough to argue that they were not a clear #2 at that point though

 

[Richard]

In the late 80s, West Indies were no longer dominant.

Had cricket started in September 1986, or were you to take a World Championship as of 1989 going no further back than June 1986, I'm fairly confident you'd be unable to separate Pakistan, New Zealand and West Indies.

 

[shortpitched713]

In the late 80s, West Indies were no longer dominant.

Had cricket started in September 1986, or were you to take a World Championship as of 1989 going no further back than June 1986, I'm fairly confident you'd be unable to separate Pakistan, New Zealand and West Indies.

I'd like to see which New Zealand team from 86-89 you think could possibly challenge Pakistan, let alone the West Indies?

 

[Richard]

Check 'em out then. New Zealand comfortably drew a series against West Indies in 1986\87.

 

[shortpitched713]

Could you seriously say with a straight face though that if that New Zealand team were to face that West Indies team in 9 more series that they'd win as many as they'd lose? Not a chance, imo.

 

[Beleg]

yaar stop it man!!! if u cant support them then dont bash em either!!!

Criticism = Bash?

PAKISTAN always have had great teams in the past

No.

....always had worlds best bowlers...

No.

even Pakistan has produced some real great kind of batsman,too ppl like Inzy, Miandad, Yusuf, Saeed Anwer, Zaheer Abbas etc etc....

All well and good however, I fail to see the relevance here.

they're just going through a bad patch...

Yes.

just one bad year doesnt mean u suck!!!

Umm.

I guess our team doesnt suck...

You guess wrong, unfortunately.

our emotional ppl suck!!!

Err, right. No comments.

yar we've got a total new Captain...new Coach...let them settle down!!! be Patient and believe in them...INSHALLAH good time will come soon

Even the mythological greatest captain/coach in the world will have trouble getting consistent performances out a group of players who are inherently mediocre - the point of this thread.

 

[Unattainableguy]

haha love that reply Beleg.

 

[Richard]

Yawer in fine form!

 

[Glacier]

We're actually not that bad. In the last 5 tests we played in 2007 we lost the toss on 4 out of 5 occasions and on the type of pitches we played at that made a hell of a lot of difference. We were also without Asif and Gul in 3 of those tests.

I'm pretty confident we'd defeat Sri Lanka, New Zealand , West Indies,(Bangladesh) and possibly England in tests. Its a shame then that the two teams we play in 2008 are Australia and India. And one or both of these could be cancelled or worse shifted to neutral venue.

 

[duffer]

The guy is 6' 3" extreamly well built who bowls in a 90 mph reigon (according to him). He is naturally an out swing bowler but recently has developed a lethal indipper which is getting him a lot of bowled's and LBW's.

Sounds interesting. Where do you guys find these characters?

 

[Flem274*]

Could you seriously say with a straight face though that if that New Zealand team were to face that West Indies team in 9 more series that they'd win as many as they'd lose? Not a chance, imo.

Yep.

 

[Glacier]

Sounds interesting. Where do you guys find these characters?

Well most Pakistanis play a lot of street cricket with a taped ball before actually playing any football. You could sort of compare it to futsal and football. This system seems to produce really fast bowlers but the downside is that you get Afridis and batsmen who cant defend or play a proper stroke.

 

[Richard]

Could you seriously say with a straight face though that if that New Zealand team were to face that West Indies team in 9 more series that they'd win as many as they'd lose? Not a chance, imo.

I honestly don't know, I don't know enough about the respective teams. West Indies' record between 1986\87 and 1997 was far from impressive, though - just once did they win a really impressive victory IMO, in 1991 against Australia. They drew the tough ones, won some easy ones and were flattered by a scoreline several times (most notably England in 1990 which should have been 2-2 at the very worst).

West Indies' road down started in 1986\87, curiously enough in the 46ao Test.

 

[shortpitched713]

They're road may have started at that point, but they still were miles ahead of New Zealand. Their pace attack was still excellent, Richards was still very good, if not the great he was before, and their opening combo was still going strong. New Zealand had Hadlee, Crowe, and a bunch of mediocre players who occasionally punched above their weight.

 

[haroon510]

i can only say that pakistan has been or had been a decent one day team since late 80s and early 90s but i really find it hard to prove if they are or were a decent test side during all these times.. the only time i think pakistan had the potential to be the best team in longer versian of the game was the years 91 to 97.. during this time the emergance of Two Ws.. the strong bating of Miandad, Inzi, saeed, malik, Ijaz made the best pakistani side ever in the history of pakistan cricket.. what went wrong was the politics on the team.. the team never played united.. personal conflict, unprofisionalism, match fixing and many other issues conterbuted to that..

it is a sad truth that the players who were involved in to these type of conterversies set a bad example even to current pakistani team.. the fact that younis khan who can be a wonderful captain doesn't want to captain the pakistani side is the example of that..

 

[Richard]

They're road may have started at that point, but they still were miles ahead of New Zealand. Their pace attack was still excellent, Richards was still very good, if not the great he was before, and their opening combo was still going strong. New Zealand had Hadlee, Crowe, and a bunch of mediocre players who occasionally punched above their weight.

They weren't miles ahead of New Zealand, at all. They probably were better, but not sufficiently better to beat them or even look like doing so on the one occasion the two faced-off.

Richards' decline from good to no-more-than-decent started in 1989, and Greenidge's in 1988. The pace attack was nothing like what it had once been after 1986, as Holding and Garner both essentially left the side after the Wisden Trophy that year. Roberts had already gone several years before, leaving the much lesser-calibre bowling of first the young Courtney Walsh and then Patrick Patterson in his place. Ambrose took a little while to find his feet too, and Bishop didn't emerge until 1989 (and had a chequered career with injury, sadly). Gomes declined severely and was a player of no note after 1984\85 (retiring before the spring of 1987), Lloyd had already retired after 1984\85, Dujon's batting fell to pieces after 1984\85... you get the picture. West Indies were nothing like the side in the late-1980s or thereafter that they had been between 1976 and 1986.

 

[aussie]

They weren't miles ahead of New Zealand, at all. They probably were better, but not sufficiently better to beat them or even look like doing so on the one occasion the two faced-off.

Richards' decline from good to no-more-than-decent started in 1989, and Greenidge's in 1988. The pace attack was nothing like what it had once been after 1986, as Holding and Garner both essentially left the side after the Wisden Trophy that year. Roberts had already gone several years before, leaving the much lesser-calibre bowling of first the young Courtney Walsh and then Patrick Patterson in his place. Ambrose took a little while to find his feet too, and Bishop didn't emerge until 1989 (and had a chequered career with injury, sadly). Gomes declined severely and was a player of no note after 1984\85 (retiring before the spring of 1987), Lloyd had already retired after 1984\85, Dujon's batting fell to pieces after 1984\85... you get the picture. West Indies were nothing like the side in the late-1980s or thereafter that they had been between 1976 and 1986.

All true but those declining great players were still good enough to hold off strong challenges from Australia, Pakistan & England to remain the best in the world up until Australia won in the Caribbean in 95.

 

[Richard]

They were impossibly fortunate to hold-off the challenge from Australia in 1992\93, but yes, the point is that while they were strong enough to avoid being beaten by the better teams, they were no longer strong enough to beat them (with the exception of Australia in 1991).

Had cricket started in 1986\87, West Indies would have had no hedgemony over Pakistan and New Zealand until 1990\91, and from 1992 onwards, Australia. They weren't even really superior to England from 1990 onwards.

It's only because of what went before that they were still considered Top Of The World until 1995. But West Indies ceased to be the undisputable Number One after 1986.