*Official* Pakistan in Australia

[Xuhaib]

Would you mind providing some detail as to how he gets most of his wickets? Not so much the method of dismissal but, e.g. speared in LBW, edged behind from the one that straightens, etc...

Has a good yorker something that is very useful in todays's world of obdurade tailenders, however the biggest strength is getting it rise awkwarly of a good length.Heard he's changed his action(again) since I last saw him so he could be a totally different bowler now.

 

[Oscillatingmind]

The Roebuck article missed the point for me, no one is disillusioned that the victory was anything more then just a save-face. To me it was a confidence booster, for this emerging team, defending such a small total where in recent times defending anything under 400 has seemed hard.

 

[stephen]

I thought that the Roebuck article was overly pessimistic.

Other than Siddle, the bowling attack is really firing well. Spinners get catches due to batsmen miscuing shots and have done since the beginning of time. Johnson has bowled extremely well, as has Siddle.

It is Australia's batting that really looks fragile. An out of form Hussey (who hopefully has recovered his form ala Hayden in 05), an out of form Ponting, a Michael Clarke who seems to be struggling this summer for form and Marcus North, who really needs a hundred in both innings of the next test to guarantee his place all make up a very fragile middle order. The lack of Katich at the top really showed how much Australia needs him at the moment. He probably should be batting at 4 - we can expect him to score more runs at 4 than as an opener.

Given their form this summer I would be tempted to drop both Clarke and North and bring in Rogers and Hughes to open, while dropping Katich to 4 and Watson to 6 (which seem like much more natural positions for them) and moving Hussey to 5. I could never see the selectors doing that, particularly with Australia's next captain, so instead I'd like to see Katich open alongside Rogers, drop Watto to 4 and Hussey to 6 (which I think is a better spot for him to be honest). Given the selectors refuse to pick anyone who isn't Punter's mate, swap the name Rogers for Hughes for a more realistic hope.

Either way, Australia really needs a shakeup with their batting. It is far too fragile at the moment, especially with Ponting out of form.

 

[Pothas]

I thought that the Roebuck article was overly pessimistic.

Other than Siddle, the bowling attack is really firing well. Spinners get catches due to batsmen miscuing shots and have done since the beginning of time. Johnson has bowled extremely well, as has Siddle.

It is Australia's batting that really looks fragile. An out of form Hussey (who hopefully has recovered his form ala Hayden in 05), an out of form Ponting, a Michael Clarke who seems to be struggling this summer for form and Marcus North, who really needs a hundred in both innings of the next test to guarantee his place all make up a very fragile middle order. The lack of Katich at the top really showed how much Australia needs him at the moment. He probably should be batting at 4 - we can expect him to score more runs at 4 than as an opener.

Given their form this summer I would be tempted to drop both Clarke and North and bring in Rogers and Hughes to open, while dropping Katich to 4 and Watson to 6 (which seem like much more natural positions for them) and moving Hussey to 5. I could never see the selectors doing that, particularly with Australia's next captain, so instead I'd like to see Katich open alongside Rogers, drop Watto to 4 and Hussey to 6 (which I think is a better spot for him to be honest). Given the selectors refuse to pick anyone who isn't Punter's mate, swap the name Rogers for Hughes for a more realistic hope.

Either way, Australia really needs a shakeup with their batting. It is far too fragile at the moment, especially with Ponting out of form.

Dropping Clarke would be knee jerk in the extreme, ok he is in poor form at the moment but he was far from dreadful against the West Indies and he was comfortably Australia’s best batsman in the ashes. He may not be the most popular player amongst fans but he is a class batsman and as you mention he would never be dropped anyway. North is obviously a different matter, played well over here this summer but it’s pretty clear that he needs to make runs in the next test or else he is in trouble.

The Watson and Katich thing is an interesting one, naturally I feel that Watson probably should be at 6 but he has played so well opening that it would seem foolish to move him down now when he is in the form of his life. Maybe if North was dropped and an opener brought in then Katich might move down, would seem to make more sense to me but the Katich and Watson partnership has been a big success and I don ‘t think breaking it up just because they are not natural openers is the right way to go but obviously it would be nonsensical to pick another opener and put him in the middle order.

 

[silentstriker]

Imagine being an Oz selector

Good pay

Big expense account

Lots of travel

Zero Accountability

How do I get a gig like that?

Aren't they volunteers? How much do they get paid?

I'd read that article, but stopped at the headline. There are other series to care about FFS.

 

[TT Boy]

Aussie, you really do need to get it through your head that everyone needs a spinner in virtually every match unless you are one of the few teams in history that could've called upon 4 top quality pacemen

Oz in 2009/10 are not in that position, ergo we need a spinner

Hauritz is performing as a spinner so do the math

Aussie, thought England didn't need Swann in South Africa.

 

[aussie]

Aussie, thought England didn't need Swann in South Africa.

No i didn't. I said the the circumstance MAY occur way 4-seamers may be considered & Swann could be dropped. If the condtions in the current series @ certain grounds where similar to what AUS had when they toured South Africa in march/april 2009 & based past ENG & AUS series i have seen in SA between 97 to 2009.

Before the 1st test ENG definately where considering playing 4-seamers vs Centurion, since there was talk the pitch may have been a greentop - but ENG didn't. To date the surfaces have not played like i expected & even if a greentop where to appear @ Jo'Burg, Swann definately should still play.

 

[aussie]

Aussie, you really do need to get it through your head that everyone needs a spinner in virtually every match unless you are one of the few teams in history that could've called upon 4 top quality pacemen

Of course Hilfenhaus/Bollinger/Johnson/Siddle aren't of the level ATM of the Windies 70s & 80s or SA of the 90s. But they definately if they are given an extended run together can be very lethal together - if ENG could make Hoggard/Harmison/Jones/Flintoff as serious force.

But even those great sides as i've explained before they knew that pace was their strenght & played the likes of WI (Harper, Butts, Nanan) & SA of the 90s (Symcox, Eskteen, Adams) when it was needed - they didn't play a spinner just for the sake of variety (or as PEWS put it because the spinners is performing). None of those spinners where top quality.

Oz in 2009/10 are not in that position, ergo we need a spinner

AUS not so long ago won in South Africa without a spinner & produced their best performance in the Ashes with an all-pace attack.

AUS not NEED a spinner or rather NEED to play a spinner (Hauritz). As i said before, he should be a horses for courses option.

Hauritz is performing as a spinner so do the math

Just because he is performing well = he is indespensable/undroppable ATM.

The fact the Haurtiz has taken back to back 5 wicket hauls, along with Krejza taking 8 wickets on debut & no-one saying with any degree of confidence that.. "yes AUS have its best test off-spinners since Ashley Mallet or Bruce Yardley" or reacting with a strong optimisim like when Warne took 7 wickets in the 92 boxing test vs WI. Pretty much proves my point.

 

[TT Boy]

No i didn't. I said the the circumstance MAY occur way 4-seamers may be considered & Swann could be dropped. If the condtions in the current series @ certain grounds where similar to what AUS had when they toured South Africa in march/april 2009 & based past ENG & AUS series i have seen in SA between 97 to 2009.

Before the 1st test ENG definately where considering playing 4-seamers vs Centurion, since there was talk the pitch may have been a greentop - but ENG didn't. To date the surfaces have not played like i expected & even if a greentop where to appear @ Jo'Burg, Swann definately should still play.

Kingsmead, first innings the wicket is green. Centurion, first innings the wicket is green. Newlands, first innings and its green. Leading wicket taker of the series, Swann. If we applied your logic, Swann would not have played as the wickets have been prepared to aid the seamers.

Before the series started you said if the wickets are green, Swann shouldn't play, discounting that wickets are not green forever and that he is comfortably England's best bowler over the past twelve months but you would have gone for a hack pace bowler regardless. The wickets have played even more so to your expectations especially in their first innings liveliness but both seam attacks are not particularly good.

I said it before the series Swann would be a danger given three of South Africa’s top six are lefties and none of them like facing spin regardless of conditions. He was always going to be threat but what is more remarkable is that his taken big hauls in first innings when the seamers should ordinarily have done the damage.

 

[aussie]

Why on earth would you advocate the lack of a spinner and give 5 examples where South Africa only won 1 of the matches. Don't you think that just maybe a spinner on a last day pitch may have been useful?

Its more than just 5 examples, as i said the attack of Donald/De Villiers/McMillan/Matthews wich played @ Lord's 94, played ALOT of test together between 92-96.

- Secondly if you actually read the specifics of those test i listed you would see that conditions demanded a all pace attack start. None of SA spinenrs in 90s where match winners, so the reasoning why a spinner may not have played in these specific tests is understandable.

- Overall its pretty obvious SA in 90s generally depended on their quicks & played a spinner (as i'm suggesitng/had hoped AUS would do with Hauritz) as a horses for courses option - rather not a KEY facet in the bowling attack.

 

[aussie]

Kingsmead, first innings the wicket is green. Centurion, first innings the wicket is green. Newlands, first innings and its green. Leading wicket taker of the series, Swann.

HAA which part of centurion pitch was green??. The pitch was low & slow throughout, i don't what i god's name you where watching. Plus this another example of you mischarterizing my position of Swann. Since off all the 4-test match grounds in that series i always said Centurion was the ground where ENG had to play a spinners, based on past tests i have seen there.

If we applied your logic, Swann would not have played as the wickets have been prepared to aid the seamers.

No this your logic, dont mix me up in your dellusional bubble

Before the series started you said if the wickets are green, Swann shouldn't play,

. Again no i said SPECIFICALLY if the condtions where like what AUS had especially in Durban & Jo'Burg last year, the option to play 4-seamers would surely have come up.

The Durban test vs ENG was nowhere near as bowler friendly as it was vs AUS in March. I dont know what Jo'Burg will be like, but as i said even if it is a greentop Swann based on peformances will have to play.

discounting that wickets are not green forever and that he is comfortably England's best bowler over the past twelve months but you would have gone for a hack pace bowler regardless.

How has Swann been a better bowler than Anderson in 2009 & how is Sidebottom a hack pace bowler (even if his recent injury woes gives concern)?

Fact is i have seen many SA wickets stay green FOREVER over 5 days, so your point doesn't hold any water.

The wickets have played even more so to your expectations especially in their first innings liveliness but both seam attacks are not particularly good.

I didn't expect Capetown to be as lively as it was based on past test matches i have seen there. So again you have dont know what you talking about, when it concerns my position on whether Swann should/shouldn't play in SA.

Durban as aformentioned was the same thing.

I said it before the series Swann would be a danger given three of South Africa’s top six are lefties and none of them like facing spin regardless of conditions. He was always going to be threat but what is more remarkable is that his taken big hauls in first innings when the seamers should ordinarily have done the damage.

. Am i what does your CLEAR misunderstanding of my position on whether Swann should/shouldn't play in certain test vs SA ATM have to do with whether you felt Swann would have been a danger to certain SA batsmen?.

After Swann's Ashes performances if anyone seriously expected him to be as effective as he has been so far, is arguing in pure hindsight IMO. If you always felt so well fair enough, but i would think he would surprised more with his work inSA - rather than lived up to expectations.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

naturally I feel that Watson probably should be at 6

lol

 

[bryce]

Nah, love Watto as a batsman but he's no more than a very useful part-timer IMO

His bowling is definitely frontline quality, the fact is he's just being used a bit like a part-timer, for a variety of reasons - already got 3 quicks, don't want to run a top order batsman into the ground etc..
If your statement is in direct regards to his bowling as opposed to the way Ponting has used Watson as a bowler(which it sounds like) then that is just madness

 

[AlanJLegend]

I went down to Bellerive oval today and watched the Aussies train for a while. They seemed to spend a lot of time practicing fielding, especially Ponting who stayed on the field and went over some extra drills while the other guys went for a bat in the nets.

My friend said he watched Pakistan train on Saturday, they supposedly played soccer and did hardly any fielding practice at all.

 

[Howsie]

I went down to Bellerive oval today and watched the Aussies train for a while. They seemed to spend a lot of time practicing fielding, especially Ponting who stayed on the field and went over some extra drills while the other guys went for a bat in the nets.

My friend said he watched Pakistan train on Saturday, they supposedly played soccer and did hardly any fielding practice at all.

I think that's already been established tbh.

 

[Xuhaib]

EMBATTLED Pakistan has plunged into a fresh crisis amid accusations that young batsman Umar Akmal tried to pull out of the Hobart Test in protest at the sacking of older brother Kamran.

The Herald Sun can reveal some Pakistan players suspected Umar may have feigned an injury after he declared himself unfit for the third Test, starting Thursday.

"I'm not playing, I have a side strain," Umar, 19, told the Herald Sun at the team's hotel yesterday morning.

The development came just 24 hours after his brother, Kamran, and Pakistan cricket officials were at loggerheads over who would keep in the Test, with the national board insisting replacement keeper Sarfraz Ahmad would play.

But fearing Umar was faking injury yesterday in protest at his brother's treatment, Pakistan sent him for medical scans, which revealed no obvious injury.



Umar was passed fit and told he must play even though he later claimed he still had muscle tightness.

To add to the confusion, Kamran maintained his brother had a "back problem" and Umar sat out training at Bellerive Oval yesterday.

When told yesterday that Umar had declared himself unfit, Australian skipper Ricky Ponting said: "It might be in protest. It's a strange situation. Umar has looked their second best batsman behind (Mohammad) Yousuf."

In another twist, Kamran will have a say in whether he plays in Hobart because, as vice-captain, as he is part of the four-man selection committee, along with captain Yousuf, coach Intikhab Alam and team manager Abdul Raqeeb.

 

[Prince EWS]

EMBATTLED Pakistan has plunged into a fresh crisis amid accusations that young batsman Umar Akmal tried to pull out of the Hobart Test in protest at the sacking of older brother Kamran.

The Herald Sun can reveal some Pakistan players suspected Umar may have feigned an injury after he declared himself unfit for the third Test, starting Thursday.

"I'm not playing, I have a side strain," Umar, 19, told the Herald Sun at the team's hotel yesterday morning.

The development came just 24 hours after his brother, Kamran, and Pakistan cricket officials were at loggerheads over who would keep in the Test, with the national board insisting replacement keeper Sarfraz Ahmad would play.

But fearing Umar was faking injury yesterday in protest at his brother's treatment, Pakistan sent him for medical scans, which revealed no obvious injury.



Umar was passed fit and told he must play even though he later claimed he still had muscle tightness.

To add to the confusion, Kamran maintained his brother had a "back problem" and Umar sat out training at Bellerive Oval yesterday.

When told yesterday that Umar had declared himself unfit, Australian skipper Ricky Ponting said: "It might be in protest. It's a strange situation. Umar has looked their second best batsman behind (Mohammad) Yousuf."

In another twist, Kamran will have a say in whether he plays in Hobart because, as vice-captain, as he is part of the four-man selection committee, along with captain Yousuf, coach Intikhab Alam and team manager Abdul Raqeeb.

 

[andyc]

awta

 

[Nate]

That's absurd.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's Pakistan.

Yes.