Group B - Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka

[marc71178]

As for Pakistan's batting..the best I can say is that it makes England's look almost competent.

That's a potential Greigy...

 

[SJS]

Which 2 bowlers would they have replaced in that line up as well - because the openers had combined figures of 18-4-62-5...

Afridi and Shoaib Malik I suppose

PS : BTW when I said asked "how many runs they would have scored" (had Shoaib and Asif been in the team) I wasn't refering to the South African teams score but the runs that Akhtar and Asif would have scored. The problem for Pakistan wasnt their bowling but their batting. Hey Marc, this post script is not meant for you for I dont think you misunderstood

 

[SJS]

As for Pakistan's batting..the best I can say is that it makes England's look almost competent.

Nooooo. You exaggerate.

Give them a flat batting track where the ball comes just waist high and Pakistani batsmen will hit on the rise, flat bat pulls from mid on to mid wicket and generally massacre the bowling in a way no one can dare try.

 

[Jono]

The problem for Pakistan wasnt their bowling but their batting. Hey Marc, this post script is not meant for you for I dont think you misunderstood

Don't you reckon it was both though? Obviously the batting was downright woeful, and the worst part, but the support bowlers weren't exactly great. Razzaq and Afridi weren't too bad, but Arafat was distinctly average.

 

[irfan]

Seriously, it's about time for Afridi to go. For too long he has ''earnt'' a spot in the team for his potential to score quickly, but bring on a track that offers just a lil bit of juice and he will self--implode (usually to long-on/off.)
Once Inzy returns his place should be gone until he can develop a defensive technique and a temperament to his mediocre shot selection

 

[SJS]

Don't you reckon it was both though? Obviously the batting was downright woeful, and the worst part, but the support bowlers weren't exactly great. Razzaq and Afridi weren't too bad, but Arafat was distinctly average.

You know Jono one shouldnt forget that the two best quick bowlers were not in the starting lineup. With that to have South Africa 60 odd for 5 was a superb show.

Then, they had been mauled by New Zealand in the earlier game for bowling short. They came back with lessons learnt and the length was fuller allowing the ball room to move sideways.

Thirdly, Younis really missed the trick by bringing in the of spinner when he did. With 5 down and only 65 on the board, he should have bowled the quicker bowlers a bit longer. He played as if he was playing for 50 overs. He should have been thinking that Pakistan were in a position to finish South Africa off around 150 or less. That means a 40 over match or something like that. He just routinely went through the "middle overs excercise" with a wide spread field completely contrary to the game situation.

Finally, Boucher and Kemp did a great job. I was amazed to see how Boucher went back to anything even slightly short pitched. Remember Smith had been leg before earlier and initially whenever he went back to slightly short pitched deliveries (even just to defense) the bowlers went up in expectation of a leg before but he was soild. I thought for a match in which so many batsmen failed to get into double figures his batting and the miraculous leg side catch should have made him the man of the match.

Then look at Kemp. He is a natural stroke player and look how he curbed his strokes. Contrast that to the antiques of Afridi who after he had hit that front foot six off a short pitched deliveriy was grinning from year to year as if he had won the match.

Yes from 65 for 5 Smith would be delighted to get to 200 plus but the Pakistani quicks did well with the resources available.