*Official* Australia vs Pakistan in England

[social]

 

[howardj]

North has to go after this series, who cares what he did with the ball, his batting simply cannot be relied upon. Not sure Smith is the answer just yet either, but ultimately whoever would replace North would be in a similar situation (i.e. still quite inexperienced).

So gutted about Johnsons dire efforts this series, guess he just can't adapt to the conditions properly. Without checking stats guru I'm guessing his home & away bowling would be a stark contrast.

Agreed. North is dire. We can't blame him though as he's merely transporting what he's done in the State sphere for many years, into the Test Match theatre - i.e. averaging in the low 40s, and either getting none (when you need him most) or a bellyfull (when we're already 4/300.

On Johnson, I think we have to live with the fact that he's very erratic. Much in the SMacGill mould, he bowls some utter crap, but his hot periods means that he delivers a world-class sub-30 average with the pill. On balance, he's a net asset.

 

[iamdavid]

If Hughes comes back I'd ideally moved Watson to three, however I can't imagine Ponting's ego wearing that, so 4 might be the best option. Again assuming Clarke could stand the demotion.

That said I'd still retain North for India as his not-awful offies could be useful over there

Moving Clarke now would be very dumb, he's obviously going to be at number four for years to come (unless things go terribly wrong), so why budge him from there temporarily straight after giving him the job just to accommodate Ponting's ego. Move Watson to 3, Ponting to 5, Hussey to 6.

Gets rid of the North problem too, they really need someone who's going to contribute on a more regular basis at number 6, rather than a guy who'll make a hundred then 5 sub-20 scores, I don't think it's a coincidence the batting's been very collapse-prone since North came onto the scene.

 

[Spark]

Why would you move your best batsman to accommodate an aging one?

AWTA on the last point. Symonds may not have been the best man for #6 but he got a 30-40 on a consistent basis... although it's also due to the fact that North's entry into the side coincided with Ponting's tail-end of his run of form, and Hussey's. Which leaves a grand total of one batsman in consistently good form in the middle order in recent history, a sure recipe for success.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't want to be too much of a curmudgeon as he's a young bloke captaining in his first test after taking over in trying circumstances and he actually won, but I wasn't massively impressed, tbh. Looked lost when Smith was counter-attacking and set some rather bizarre fields.

Stating the obvious as it may be, but his bowlers won him the test. Most of the dismissals were bowled, LBW or caught by the keeper which one doesn't usually ascribe to the captain's tactical acumen.

Spoke well tho.

I'm a little reluctant to criticise him after such an excellent bowling performance. Especially considering the circumstances under which he took the job, it doesn't feel quite right. It's a bit like bringing a club-standard batsman into the side as a last-minute replacement for an unexpected injury, then complaining after the match that he wasn't very good at batting.

I agree that his field placings weren't very good but I don't think that costs sides very often unless they're setting an unnecessarily negative tone. Not many dismissals involve a third slip or short leg anyway. So meh, he got the job done.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Fair enough.

Let's get back on topic

---

Err... how did people find Butt's captaincy? Both on and off. Looked impressive off the field in the interview, classy and composed (I am overusing those words), but he has a bit to learn on it. Still. Brings a calmness and rationality to the team which is desperately required.

You know the famous saying nothing succeeds like success. Now that Pakistan has won..most people will probably tend to be positive in their attitude towards Salman Butt. But Uppercut said something which I thought was very intelligent in the Ricky Ponting sacking thread. He said "The batsmen batted badly and the bowlers bowled badly. What's that got to do with whether Ponting's a good captain or not?"

Yeah the bowling was excellent. The fielding was excellent (for Pakistan standards, no dropped catches is an excellent day at the field) and the batting wasnt as bad as it could have been (at least they didnt get all out for 150 in the first innings)
But what does that have to do with whether Butt is a good captain or not?

His strategies, field placings, body language was pretty unimpressive, left a lot to be desired.
When Australia came into bat in the second innings, Michael Holding remarked that the field that Butt set was as if Austraila were 170 runs ahead instead of behind.

Well for his defence, this is his first test match and hopefully he will improve, but considering how close we were to lose this match, I am not too keen on heaping praise on him just as yet. If we had lost this match, all those weaknesses, defensive fields, relying on Kaneria and Gul against Smith, appearing clueless against Smith onslaught would be the reasons.

 

[nightprowler10]

The man speaks truth.

 

[vcs]

Also deserves some credit for bowling the innocuous-looking Umar Amin, TBH.

 

[slowfinger]

Also deserves some credit for bowling the innocuous-looking Umar Amin, TBH.

Ya, man has guts. These are the types of thing a captain needs he should get credited for his flexibilty, he just used that brain and with guidance, he will get better IMO.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah the bowling was excellent. The fielding was excellent (for Pakistan standards, no dropped catches is an excellent day at the field) and the batting wasnt as bad as it could have been (at least they didnt get all out for 150 in the first innings)
But what does that have to do with whether Butt is a good captain or not?

His strategies, field placings, body language was pretty unimpressive, left a lot to be desired.
When Australia came into bat in the second innings, Michael Holding remarked that the field that Butt set was as if Austraila were 170 runs ahead instead of behind.

Look, Im not going to come out here and stand by Salman Butt but isnt bringing out the best in your players part of captaincy? I think we need to keep in mind that here is a man who has never captained at any level of the game and he's been given the task of captaining the most mercurial team in the world. His strategies and field placings were obviously going to be at a novice level because the man is a novice. There's no point criticizing him when this should have been expected when he was given the arm band.

 

[tooextracool]

No, not for me. He's a top 4 batsman or he's nothing. I don't think it's coincidence he's looked a much better bat opening than he did in the middle order. He needs time to construct an innings and he'll never be as good as Hussey is at rotating the strike and protecting the tail.

If Hughes comes back I'd ideally moved Watson to three, however I can't imagine Ponting's ego wearing that, so 4 might be the best option. Again assuming Clarke could stand the demotion.

That said I'd still retain North for India as his not-awful offies could be useful over there.

You might be right on Watson, perhaps he'd be better off batting at 4 or 5. I dont think he should be in the top 3 though, he plays too many strokes to be in those slots and hes going to struggle batting like that against the new ball. His lbw dismissal against Asif was appalling, I mean heres a guy playing a full blooded front foot drive and missing the ball by a good few inches and getting out lbw.

Personally, I'd like for Ponting to bat at 5 and perhaps Watson to bat at 4 with Hussey at 6 and Clarke at 3. However, I dont see that happening.

I wouldnt have North anywhere near this side. As I've said plenty of times before, he'd been lucky to get this far in his career while being such a poor player, and he adds no value to this side because hes an average player who also happens to be aging. Time to blood someone young and hes the first one on the chopping block.

 

[Jono]

Look, Im not going to come out here and stand by Salman Butt but isnt bringing out the best in your players part of captaincy?

Yeah agreed.

Big reason why Steve Waugh deserves credit, as does Ponting at times.

Of course it's not the be all and end all, but what Butt achieved should not be underestimated. I was criticising his field settings and tactics here. But make no mistake, to even have Pakistan be competitive after that dickhead Afridi walked out deserves a medal!

 

[Sir Alex]

Well done Pakistan!

 

[Sir Alex]

BTW lol @ this writer:

Pakistan v Australia: Ponting delighted as new-look team takes shape | Cricket News | Pakistan v Australia 2010 | Cricinfo.com

It's that sort of depth that has Ponting looking forward with confidence. The rebuilding is complete, now the finishing touches are being applied.

 

[Top_Cat]

In fairness, the article was written immediately following a 150-run win against the same team they just lost to. Nowhere does it say they're going to be world-beaters or anything outrageous like that. At the time, don't see any problem with what he wrote, especially about Paine whose work behind the sticks was far better than most expected it would be.

Pretty conservative as far as articles written about and by Aussies is concerned.

 

[vic_orthdox]

In fairness, the article was written immediately following a 150-run win against the same team they just lost to. Nowhere does it say they're going to be world-beaters or anything outrageous like that. At the time, don't see any problem with what he wrote, especially about Paine whose work behind the sticks was far better than most expected it would be.

Think it was a relatively flawed premise in the first place. It's hard to talk about rebuilding being finished when you don't yet have your preferred XI playing at the time. And there were still a number of question marks over a number of players supposedly in the 1st XI (North, the role of Watson, etc.).

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but when do you say it's over? When the team reaches the heights of the early 00's team? If that's the case, the 00's team was essentially in rebuilding since the early 80's, the 70's team in rebuilding since the '48 team and this one will be the same for decades. At some stage people have to accept that, for better or worse, this is the team and has essentially been so for 3 years now. Johnson's not the newbie, he should be the leader of the attack. Clarke's now the best batter in the line-up, etc. They're obviously not as good and may not be number 1 any more but they're also unlikely to free-fall from here.

Realistically, the rebuilding probably finished a while ago. The core is there and blokes are being picked as others get injured/lose form, just as happened in the early 00's. Those guys were just that much better and this combo may not ever be as good.

 

[tooextracool]

In fairness, the article was written immediately following a 150-run win against the same team they just lost to. Nowhere does it say they're going to be world-beaters or anything outrageous like that. At the time, don't see any problem with what he wrote, especially about Paine whose work behind the sticks was far better than most expected it would be.

Pretty conservative as far as articles written about and by Aussies is concerned.

Its hard to see how this statement is justified exactly:

"One of the most impressive aspects of their Lord's triumph was the emergence of Paine and Smith, who proved themselves to be of Test standard."

 

[Top_Cat]

Depends on definition of Test standard. Performing over a period of time or making the team and not embarrassing oneself. Time will tell of the former but they did the latter. Obviously it's too early to say they've arrived and will be consistent Test performers but that, for me, is different to saying they're of Test standard.

 

[Top_Cat]

Guess I'm just tired of the whole 'we're in a rebuilding phase' stuff. It provides a convenient excuse and takes away from the performance of your opponents which does little to endear the team, incidentally.

For better or worse, this is the team. Let the results come what may because, for now, they're probably not going to get much better.