• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** England in Pakistan

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Scaly piscine said:
Figures. First Murali could merrily chuck his doosra at England, now we'll have two guys chucking against England.
Scaly, I'm disappointed in you - the story's been out 5 hours.

Edit:

I'm also disappointed in myself. You posted your bit 5 hours ago. Sorry. :D

Edit 2:

No you didn't. I'd looked at the thread without logging on, and it was registering New Zealand sheep-shearing time or something. I'll shut up now.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Scaly piscine said:
Hmm another couple of minutes before luckyeddie can post, enjoy it while you can folks...

Meh too late.
I don't understand.

It's as though I have done something to be ashamed of whilst drunk, then the next time I walked into the same bar everyone looks up, sees me, giggles, looks at their pint.

Did I make a pass at Marc? Or (even worse) you?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Fusion said:
Now coming back to the Shabbir controversy, I think the prudent thing to do is to drop him for the next match. Just to be on the safe side. I know he was very productive and will be missed.
The interesting thing is the reports I've read said that it was on the 3rd morning that the doubts came in.

IIRC wasn't he innocuous on Day 2, as if he was trying his hardest to bowl within the guidelines and it was more a subconcious thing on Day 3?
 

chris.hinton

International Captain
The fact that Marc 71178 is soooo up Giles **** is plain to see, Udal should be given another chance and Giles has taken 10 wickets at 51 in the Ashes and that was considered good ( it rubbish if it was Flintoff there would have been calls to drop him)

139 wickets at 40 is poor

Now Udal is 36 and really is at thwe end of his career already but i think he should be number 1 spinner now for the Rest of Pakistand and India tour and the 2006 Domestic season

Then we should give Panesar a chance then hopefully a Leggie will finallly come though
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
chris.hinton said:
The fact that Marc 71178 is soooo up Giles **** is plain to see, Udal should be given another chance and Giles has taken 10 wickets at 51 in the Ashes and that was considered good ( it rubbish if it was Flintoff there would have been calls to drop him)

139 wickets at 40 is poor

Now Udal is 36 and really is at thwe end of his career already but i think he should be number 1 spinner now for the Rest of Pakistand and India tour and the 2006 Domestic season

Then we should give Panesar a chance then hopefully a Leggie will finallly come though
Panesar should have been given his chance on this tour. Udal and Loudon is a waste of two spinners places. Giles, Panesar and Keedy are streets ahead of Udal in my book, with Loudon and Swann around par with him.
 

Barney Rubble

International Coach
steds said:
Panesar should have been given his chance on this tour. Udal and Loudon is a waste of two spinners places. Giles, Panesar and Keedy are streets ahead of Udal in my book, with Loudon and Swann around par with him.
Thing is though, until we find a pace bowler who can bat at 8 (which Plunkett might be able to do if and when he comes into the side) we can't afford to have a spinner who can't bat (i.e. Panesar or Keedy) in the side, else we'd have to bat Hoggard at 8, and that's even worse than having Sami there. Hence all the spinners picked for this tour can bat.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I just wrote this. Comments, feedback welcome.

Facing adversity

The English cricket team is at crossroads right now. There is no question that the team is number two in the world. Series win versus the Kiwis, South Africans, the Windies and Australia recently have shown England to be the unquestionable number two.

The thing is a few teams have claimed that spot over the past decade. South Africa was the unquestionable number 2. But they could not match up to Australia and went into decline post 2003.

India was the team to watch a year and a half back. At that point of time they had a home series victory versus the Australians, had drawn the series down under and had just beaten Pakistan in Pakistan. But then the party was over. A home series loss to Australia and again like South Africa failing to raise that level meant they did not reach much higher.

Kiwi fans had the firm belief that they had the rightful place at number 2. A session of havoc caused by Shoaib Akhtar meant they lost a series to Pakistan at home. Then they had the injury prone tour of England where England were the convincing winners. And with that the talk of Kiwis posing a challenge disappeared into thin air.

England is at the same stage right now. When the going gets tough, the champion teams get going. England have lost the first test to Pakistan by a close margin. They are also in a crisis of sorts with not having their full strength team. However when we look back at the current series and the one to be played in India in the future, those aspects will not be looked at.

The team England is challenging right now for the top spot has an superb record in the subcontinent. This is in sharp contrast to Australia the world champions in the late 90s. If England was to challenge for the number 1 spot maybe 5 years earlier, they could have been hailed as world champions just by beating Australia in Australia in a little more than 12 months.

The current situation, however, requires England to at least draw one of the two series and win the other. Can England do it despite having a pace centric attack rather than a spin centric attack? Australia did it in India only when they relied on their strength and opted not to change too many things. South Africa, which was the first team to break the jinx of away teams losing in India did it with a rather weak spin attack. The Windies team won every where with their pace battery. So the key is to focus on the strengths rather than change too many things.

England faces a challenge as would any team eyeing for a top spot. The team has shown that they will not give up without a fight. One thing is for sure, cricket fans and not just the English supporters will be tracking England’s progress.
 
Last edited:

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
BR - I guess that means you dont have much confidence in the England top & middle order ??
 

Barney Rubble

International Coach
Sanz said:
BR - I guess that means you dont have much confidence in the England top & middle order ??
I do, it's just that with no8s around like Pollock (Test average 31.32, 2x100s), Vettori (23.88, 2x100s), Warne (17.02, 11x50s), Pathan (22.43), and Vaas (21.46, 9x50), if England have aspirations of being the best side in the world they can't afford to have Hoggard (8.24) at no8 doing no damage at all, when players like Pollock or Vettori can come in, crack a quick 70 and take the game away from you. Plunkett averages 21.23 in FC cricket, so hopefully in the future he could go on to fulfil the "bowler who bats" role for England.
 

ClownSymonds

U19 Vice-Captain
I think it would be foolish for Pakistan to play Shabbir now. The umpires are probably not too happy about him chucking, and will be even less impressed if he continues to play even after they reported him. They will call him for plenty of no-balls, if they're at all courageous. Naved-ul-Hasan Rana should, and probably will be, included in the team in his place. I would say that Asif could make a good case for inclusion as well, but performance in the warm-up matches obviously doesn't translate into performance in tests, as shown by Hasan Raza. Afridi will also have to be included, hopefully in place of Raza, in order to provide a second spin option as a result of Malik being reported as well.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
ClownSymonds said:
I think it would be foolish for Pakistan to play Shabbir now. The umpires are probably not too happy about him chucking, and will be even less impressed if he continues to play even after they reported him. They will call him for plenty of no-balls, if they're at all courageous.
Shabbir has bee given the permission to play as it stands. So if Pakistan feel they have a better chance with him playing, they better play him. The only aspect is such things shatters a player and gets him low on confidence and moral usually. So that may be the strong reason not to play him.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Pratyush said:
I just wrote this. Comments, feedback welcome.

Facing adversity

The English cricket team is at crossroads right now. There is no question that the team is number two in the world. Series win versus the Kiwis, South Africans, the Windies and Australia recently have shown England to be the unquestionable number two.

The thing is a few teams have claimed that spot over the past decade. South Africa was the unquestionable number 2. But they could not match up to Australia and went into decline post 2003.

India was the team to watch a year and a half back. At that point of time they had a home series victory versus the Australians, had drawn the series down under and had just beaten Pakistan in Pakistan. But then the party was over. A home series loss to Australia and again like South Africa failing to raise that level meant they did not reach much higher.

Kiwi fans had the firm belief that they had the rightful place at number 2. A session of havoc caused by Shoaib Akhtar meant they lost a series to Pakistan at home. Then they had the injury prone tour of England where England were the convincing winners. And with that the talk of Kiwis posing a challenge disappeared into thin air.

England is at the same stage right now. When the going gets tough, the champion teams get going. England have lost the first test to Pakistan by a close margin. They are also in a crisis of sorts with not having their full strength team. However when we look back at the current series and the one to be played in India in the future, those aspects will not be looked at.

The team England is challenging right now for the top spot has an superb record in the subcontinent. This is in sharp contrast to Australia the world champions in the late 90s. If England was to challenge for the number 1 spot maybe 5 years earlier, they could have been hailed as world champions just by beating Australia in Australia in a little more than 12 months.

The current situation, however, requires England to at least draw one of the two series and win the other. Can England do it despite having a pace centric attack rather than a spin centric attack? Australia did it in India only when they relied on their strength and opted not to change too many things. South Africa, which was the first team to break the jinx of away teams losing in India did it with a rather weak spin attack. The Windies team won every where with their pace battery. So the key is to focus on the strengths rather than change too many things.

England faces a challenge as would any team eyeing for a top spot. The team has shown that they will not give up without a fight. One thing is for sure, cricket fans and not just the English supporters will be tracking England’s progress.
I agree that this & the Indian tour will tell us a lot about this England side. For some players - especially in the middle order - they might even determine whether they will still be in the side in 12 months time, especially with Aus likely to be playing 2 leggies in the next Ashes series. Your point about the spin attack is well made, and the comparison with SA in the late 90's is a good one. We have shown that we have a spinner or 2 who can do a job in Asia, even if both Giles & Udal were horribly annonymous in this week's test, but I agree that there's little point in not worrying about whether we have a Warne or a Murali, cos it's not going to happen.

Thing is, despite the Ashes win, I think we're well short of being a dominant number 1 side like Aus or WI before them. We may well overtake Aus when McGrath & Warne go, and we may even beat them in Aus next winter, but you couldn't look at the side and say there's the number of world class performers that previous number 1's have had. It's getting there, but for the most part the side is still being rebuilt, and it's relatively early days. Look how different the side is from the 2001 or even the 2002/3 Ashes, and you'll see what I mean. We're still trying to replace the Butcher/Hussain/Thorpe middle order who all went in the space of 12 months, and the current occupants may or may not be the answers.

I don't think there will be a clearcut handing over the crown like from WI to Aus in 1995. I just don't see English cricket producing quite the quality of players to achieve that. In some ways though, what we're going to see over the next 5 years or so will be more interesting
 

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
ClownSymonds said:
I think it would be foolish for Pakistan to play Shabbir now. The umpires are probably not too happy about him chucking, and will be even less impressed if he continues to play even after they reported him. They will call him for plenty of no-balls, if they're at all courageous. Naved-ul-Hasan Rana should, and probably will be, included in the team in his place. I would say that Asif could make a good case for inclusion as well, but performance in the warm-up matches obviously doesn't translate into performance in tests, as shown by Hasan Raza. Afridi will also have to be included, hopefully in place of Raza, in order to provide a second spin option as a result of Malik being reported as well.
And at least Rana can hold a bat, Shabbir Ahmed has to be one of the worst batsman in test cricket. Rana would be a good choice, from what I have seen of him he has a knack of taking wickets with trite though to be fair, he does have a good cricketing brain and on a flat pitch, his variations in pace will offer something different. Regarding Malick, if he isn’t going to bowl, there is no need for him surely. Bring in Mansoor Amjad.
 

steds

Hall of Fame Member
Barney Rubble said:
Thing is though, until we find a pace bowler who can bat at 8 (which Plunkett might be able to do if and when he comes into the side) we can't afford to have a spinner who can't bat (i.e. Panesar or Keedy) in the side, else we'd have to bat Hoggard at 8, and that's even worse than having Sami there. Hence all the spinners picked for this tour can bat.
But we've got Giles at 8. Hoggard has batted 9 and Harmison 10 for England for a long time, also
 

Top