The Best of The Rest - NZ, WI, Pak, Bang in tests

[WindieWeathers]

Pakistan's bowling attack>>>>>>>>West Indies' bowling attack.
WI batting>>>Pak's batting

If Yousuf and Younis return,Pak's batting>>>>WI batting

Either way,Pak>>>>WI.No contest.West Indies have been getting whitewashed left,right and center.Pakistan have at least been managing to stay competitive even without their best players.

Yeah like those two guys were winning games for Pak before they went out the side right? and also Pak pretty much just have Aamer and Asif in the bowling dapartment, the others are pretty average and once the ball turns old Pak's pace attack seems to run out of ideas.

You seem to want to seperate the units to suit your argument, WI strongest team >>>>>>>>> Paks it's as simple as that.

Another question is when was the last time Pak won a test series? FOUR YEARS AGO!!, we beat England last year, case closed.

 

[Bahnz]

Pakistan drew with NZ in NZ recently.I would def back Pak to beat them in Pak...

They were very lucky to do so. If the rain at Napier had held off for another hour, New Zealand would've won that series 2-1

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah like those two guys were winning games for Pak before they went out the side right? and also Pak pretty much just have Aamer and Asif in the bowling dapartment, the others are pretty average and once the ball turns old Pak's pace attack seems to run out of ideas.

It's not like the Windies much vaunted batting has been winning them heaps of games in recent times either.

Another question is when was the last time Pak won a test series? FOUR YEARS AGO!!

And guess who that was against...

 

[WindieWeathers]

It's not like the Windies much vaunted batting has been winning them heaps of games in recent times either.

We haven't had our strongest batting line-up since we beat England last year though!!

And guess who that was against...

NZ?.. nah i know it was against us, but come that was a LOOOOOOONNNNGGGG time ago!!.

 

[Bahnz]

We haven't had our strongest batting line-up since we beat England last year though!!

I dunno. The key figures (Gayle, Chanders, Bravo, Nash and to a lesser extent Sarwan) have been present for most of that time. Yes Barath is injured, but he's only missed 4 matches. The batting has been relatively stable, but sadly an over-reliance on Gayle and Chanderpaul, and a general lack of depth still makes them vulnerable to collapse.

 

[WindieWeathers]

I dunno. The key figures (Gayle, Chanders, Bravo, Nash and to a lesser extent Sarwan) have been present for most of that time. Yes Barath is injured, but he's only missed 4 matches. The batting has been relatively stable, but sadly an over-reliance on Gayle and Chanderpaul, and a general lack of depth still makes them vulnerable to collapse.

I think Sarwan only played one of the Aus tests and missed the whole of the test against SA, Barath played a few Tests against Aus and missed the whole of the SA series too, those two are massive for us because one is an opener and the other plays at three, Dowlin couldn't step up to the plate and neither could Dale Richards which is why our batting against Sa was so up and down, we've also got Marlon Samuels now to add some extra strength to our middle order and Darren Bravo has looked sensational of late.

 

[Furball]

Go away and stop trying to ruin Cricket Chat.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Yeah like those two guys were winning games for Pak before they went out the side right? and also Pak pretty much just have Aamer and Asif in the bowling dapartment, the others are pretty average and once the ball turns old Pak's pace attack seems to run out of ideas.

How many matches have BOTH of them played together recently?Just so you know,they are better than every batsman in the current WI line-up with the possible exception of Chanderpaul, and even then they're better.

You seem to want to seperate the units to suit your argument, WI strongest team >>>>>>>>> Paks it's as simple as that..

lol if Pakistan's batting at full strength is >>>WI and bowling>>>>WI,then it's pretty logical to assume that Pak>>>WI (yes you could argue about fielding but I think with Pak they just need a damn 'keeper who can catch).

Pak's strongest side :

1.Salman
2.Azhar Ali
3.Younus
4.Yosaf
5.Umar Akmal
6.Fawad Alam
7.Any 'keeper who can catch
8.Gul
9.Amir
10.Asif
11.Kaneria/Ajmal

This side will beat any side that WI manage to string together,full stength or not,any conditions.

Another question is when was the last time Pak won a test series? FOUR YEARS AGO!!, we beat England last year, case closed.

Again this is a ridiculous argument.Pakistan did not play a single test in 2008
So uness you are saying that they should have won matches they didn't play-and given your arguments earlier on this thread,I wouldn't be surprised if you are-there goes your argument.

What does that leave?A couple of tours in 2007-one of them was a 1-0 loss against India,can't remember the other(s).In 2009 they lost 2-0 in SL from a dominating postion in both matches.They drew in New Zealand and then lost 0-3 in Aus.They came back strongly to draw 1-1 w/o some of their best players against a strong Aussie side.When was the last time WI won a test against Aus?

And West Indies' win last year was at home wasn't it?Given Pak can't play home games that isn't a fair comparison.When was the last time WI beat someone away from home?


EDIT - just checked. West Indies' last win before the early 09 home win against England was back in May 2004 against Bangladesh at home!!!!You have to go back a year more for a series in which they beat a non-minnow (SL in 2003),again at home.

In fact,WI last series win away from home excl.Zim/Bang was against NZ in 1995!!!!!!!!!!!

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=start;template=results;type=team;view=series

 

[Cevno]

Whenever i open this thread it is the same argument going on with just different angles and different theories.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

They were very lucky to do so. If the rain at Napier had held off for another hour, New Zealand would've won that series 2-1

If's and but's can change a lot of things mate.One could just as easily say that NZ were lucky to win the first test.

 

[Flem274*]

What, because they bowled well?

 

[Avada Kedavra]

What, because they bowled well?

They did bowl well but Pak were 200-5 or something with the Akmal bros at the crease,only to implode in characteristic fashion.Some of the shots played by the Pak batsmen were just ridiculous.

Anyway,my point is that the scoreline reads 1-1 and that is what matters really.NZ were on top in the third test,but Pak's bowlers were equally capable of staging a remarkable comeback.

 

[Prince EWS]

Whenever i open this thread it is the same argument going on with just different angles and different theories.

Isn't that the point though? The same argument is the question asked in the thread title.. it's supposed to be like that...

 

[Bahnz]

They did bowl well but Pak were 200-5 or something with the Akmal bros at the crease,only to implode in characteristic fashion.Some of the shots played by the Pak batsmen were just ridiculous.

Anyway,my point is that the scoreline reads 1-1 and that is what matters really.NZ were on top in the third test,but Pak's bowlers were equally capable of staging a remarkable comeback.

That's not luck, though. That's just waiting for Pakistan to be Pakistan. Considering it happens in every game they play at some point, it can't really be considered a chance happening.

As for Pakistan staging a major comeback in the Napier test, while nothing is impossible, I severely doubt it. By that point the Napier track had become so flat and lifeless, I doubt even Wasim and Waqar could've made much progress.

 

[Jezroy]

As for Pakistan staging a major comeback in the Napier test, while nothing is impossible, I severely doubt it. By that point the Napier track had become so flat and lifeless, I doubt even Wasim and Waqar could've made much progress.

Wasim and Waqar vs the NZ and PAK batting line ups now would LAY WASTE ON THEIR FACES. Napier or no Napier.

 

[Top_Cat]

Anyway,my point is that the scoreline reads 1-1 and that is what matters really.NZ were on top in the third test,but Pak's bowlers were equally capable of staging a remarkable comeback.

Yeah but you're comparing what NZ actually did vs what Pakistan could have done. They're not the same thing. Potential means squat, Pakistan only really have any credibility right now because they actually beat Australia, not because of what they could have done in the series here or against NZ.

And NZ performance in the first Test was far less about luck than good solid Test cricket. They put on 400 in the first dig despite excellent bowling by Pakistan both digs and defended a middling score with a good solid team effort. Credit where it's due, eh?

 

[Jezroy]

Yeah but you're comparing what NZ actually did vs what Pakistan could have done. They're not the same thing.

Yes - but to be fair that was in rebuttal to NZ fans (myself included) believing that NZ would have won that game.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yar and Watling's no-pressure runs made the game look closer too.

 

[Jezroy]

Yar and Watling's no-pressure runs made the game look closer too.

I agree with you - 95 percent certain NZ would have won that game had it gone the full distance (ie. one more session), but I can see where Adava K is coming from.

Doesn't mean I think he's right.

 

[Jezroy]

Incidentally, think Bangladesh missed an opportunity to give NZ a fright with the news that they are delaying their test series. And I'm a NZ supporter.

Bangladesh postpone New Zealand Tests | Bangladesh Cricket News | Cricinfo.com