***Official*** England in Pakistan

[ClownSymonds]

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.

Though Malik didn't bat so well in the first match, he has shown promise. I think that it would be a fine choice to leave him in as a batsman alone. Mansoor Amjad has shown promise as well, but is completely unproven at the international level, as far as I know.

And yeah, Shabbir Ahmed is probably the single worst batsman in world cricket. I've never seen anyone bat so poorly in my entire life.

 

[Fusion]

But isn't he fit at the moment?, also what's the status on Abdul Razzaq, has he got over his elbow injury?.

According to Bob Woolmer's website, Razzaq is still hurt and won't be playing the 2nd test. Also, Mohammad Yousaf is expected to be played as his injury is healing.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Reading the cricinfo report it mentions that Shabbir & Malik can be called now for chucking. I guess this raises the possibility of the Pakistani reaction in this eventuality. My personal guess is that they won't be called to avoid a possible Ranatunga-esque walk off. It would be a brave ump to do it.

I have to be honest, I didn't see the whole match but I didn't see anything overly untoward in Malik's action. Shabbir's looks terrible tho.

 

[Fusion]

Though Malik didn't bat so well in the first match, he has shown promise. I think that it would be a fine choice to leave him in as a batsman alone. Mansoor Amjad has shown promise as well, but is completely unproven at the international level, as far as I know.

I agree. Malik has a good potential as a batsman. Plus, Woolmer has stated that they would stick with the current opening combination till the course of this series. I think that's wise. I'm tired of the million new combinations that Pakistan have tried on in the recent past!

 

[wpdavid]

I agree. Malik has a good potential as a batsman. Plus, Woolmer has stated that they would stick with the current opening combination till the course of this series. I think that's wise. I'm tired of the million new combinations that Pakistan have tried on in the recent past!

Remembering how often we were told that their openers would be a weak link, they did pretty well.

From an English perspective, one thing we must do is make better use of the 1st new ball instead of playing catchup with the 2nd one. Having said how well the quicks did the other day, maybe I was being a bit generous. If we are going to stand any chance of getting back into this series, we need to be far more threatening at the start of the Pakisatn innings.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I have to be honest, I didn't see the whole match but I didn't see anything overly untoward in Malik's action. Shabbir's looks terrible tho.

My thoughts exactly, Shabbir looks like one of the most blatant chuckers I've seen tbh, but Malik looked fine to me.

 

[PY]

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

You make a good point there, I think people have got used to the fact that there's been one team in domination of world cricket for so long that it's what people are expecting/talking about England doing the future possibly.

I don't think that will happen because other sides (ie Australia and India) will react to it but I reckon it's not unreasonable to maybe see there being 2-3 teams who you can't split at the top and all the series are close run things.

Maybe that's just more Australia rejoining the pack after domination rather than others steaming past Australia. Not really something I've put a lot of thought into actually because it's been domination by one side for the whole time I've been alive really.

 

[Sanz]

I don't think that will happen because other sides (ie Australia and India) will react to it but I reckon it's not unreasonable to maybe see there being 2-3 teams who you can't split at the top and all the series are close run things.

In other words..India will continue to win in India and lose/draw abroad, Englad would continue to lose in subcontinent but win everywhere else , Australia will continue with their domination @ home although they will net go on to win 17 in a row...

 

[Pratters]

You make a good point there, I think people have got used to the fact that there's been one team in domination of world cricket for so long that it's what people are expecting/talking about England doing the future possibly.

I don't think that will happen because other sides (ie Australia and India) will react to it but I reckon it's not unreasonable to maybe see there being 2-3 teams who you can't split at the top and all the series are close run things.

Maybe that's just more Australia rejoining the pack after domination rather than others steaming past Australia. Not really something I've put a lot of thought into actually because it's been domination by one side for the whole time I've been alive really.

Yeah David made a very good point. The thing is we as cricket fans like to say team X is the best currently or team Y is the best currently. Even small distinctions makes us jump to conclusions. If both teams have excellent records in the subcontinent and even records versus each other an arguement can crop up - Team X played much better cricket vs team Z in the subcontinent winning 4-0 but team Y won the series by a 2-1 margin against team Z.

There will be much stronger debate about who is the best when the gap closes. But smaller margins wouldnt mean there wouldnt be a best. During the periods of transitions there would be much stronger debate when the gaps are the smallest. I would have like to know what the debates were like when the champions changed in the view of the fans.

History has shown that a strong top team with a strong challenger is good for most sports. What is called a rivalry. Can we get that with two or three teams battling it out for the top spot? A very exciting prospect.

 

[wpdavid]

There will be much stronger debate about who is the best when the gap closes. But smaller margins wouldnt mean there wouldnt be a best. During the periods of transitions there would be much stronger debate when the gaps are the smallest. I would have like to know what the debates were like when the champions changed in the view of the fans.

History has shown that a strong top team with a strong challenger is good for most sports. What is called a rivalry. Can we get that with two or three teams battling it out for the top spot? A very exciting prospect.

I suppose the number 1 spot has been universally recognised as changing hands when the contender has won in the previous occupant's backyard - e.g. Aus in WI 1995, WI in Aus 1979/80, England in Aus 1954/5. That normally doesn't leave too much room for argument!

More competiton at the top is definitely be good news for the sport, especially if it means more of what we saw in the English summer. I suppose the last time we had that was in the mid-90's, when SA and maybe Pakistan weren't far behind Aus. But it's been rare.

My only question is over the level of quality in 2-3 years' time. It seems likely that Aus won't be nearly as good without their 2 alltimegreats. SA will be competitive, but it's still hard to see them reaching the standards they set in the 90's, especially once Pollock has gone. I wonder if test cricket will be more competitive than we have seen but at a lower standard than we would want it to be.

 

[Blaze]

^ Yeah I can't see too many young superstars coming through to be fair. I think you will probably be right.

 

[Barney Rubble]

But we've got Giles at 8. Hoggard has batted 9 and Harmison 10 for England for a long time, also

For some bizarre reason I was assuming you were talking about if Giles wasn't there, don't know what gave me that idea. Forget it. However, I think Udal was chosen because if Giles did get injured on tour, then he'd be able to bat at 8 (just about) and not be a complete waste of space, whereas if Panesar had been chosen instead of him, he would have been exactly that with the bat.

 

[ClownSymonds]

I don't recall this Ranatunga walk-off incident - what happened?

 

[wpdavid]

I don't recall this Ranatunga walk-off incident - what happened?

Wasn't that when Murali was noballed in Australia for chucking in a ODI against England? Maybe in 1998/99.

 

[wpdavid]

Anyway, a passing quickie before going to bed. Can anyone name the Pakistan vs England test when *three* guys were dismissed for 99, including 2 Pakistanis in the same innings? Must be a record.

Night all ......

 

[Pratters]

I suppose the number 1 spot has been universally recognised as changing hands when the contender has won in the previous occupant's backyard - e.g. Aus in WI 1995, WI in Aus 1979/80, England in Aus 1954/5. That normally doesn't leave too much room for argument!

That is generally the case David but not necessarily. For example if England lost disastrously in the two series in the subcontinent and then won the Ashes series in Englad by a whisker, would they be regarded as the world champions universally? Specially if Australia go on to win series after series after the future Ashes and England lose some more series - lets say versus a stronger South African team? This is all speculation but just to show that winning at the current champion team's back yard by the no. 2 team would not necessarily mean the team is no. 1.

My only question is over the level of quality in 2-3 years' time. It seems likely that Aus won't be nearly as good without their 2 alltimegreats. SA will be competitive, but it's still hard to see them reaching the standards they set in the 90's, especially once Pollock has gone. I wonder if test cricket will be more competitive than we have seen but at a lower standard than we would want it to be.

I dread this aspect as well. If we notice the current bowlers, the standards are lower than the 90s. A rest of the world side facing Australia would likely have a pace attack which wouldnt stand a chance of comparing against a ROW pace attack of the 90s.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't recall this Ranatunga walk-off incident - what happened?

Emerson no-balled Murali (no surprise there) and Ranatunga wasn't having it.

 

[social]

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.

Unless you find a spinner that bowls well enough to compensate for other weaknesses.

The question is: does Giles bat well enough to compensate for his bowling?

 

[wpdavid]

That is generally the case David but not necessarily. For example if England lost disastrously in the two series in the subcontinent and then won the Ashes series in Englad by a whisker, would they be regarded as the world champions universally? Specially if Australia go on to win series after series after the future Ashes and England lose some more series - lets say versus a stronger South African team? This is all speculation but just to show that winning at the current champion team's back yard by the no. 2 team would not necessarily mean the team is no. 1.

True. Hopefully nobody would be worried about who was the "number 1" in that scenario. That's why I'm not hugely fussed about the league table. If there is a standout team, it's usually obvious to everyone. If not, then a league based over a period of years with all the vagueries that test cricket entails is meaningless.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Ever since the Ashes, the standard of cricket has been so lop-sided that I almost feel like praising England for losing... As a cricket fan, I'd rather hear about five day matches and dramatic finishes than another white wash. If England go on to win this series, it'll be far more satisfying than a 3-0 drubbing; if they lose, then Pakistan get a famous victory. Plus, they defend the home stockade, like all teams should.

This is coming from a neutral, of course, but I hate routs, even when it's my own team. That's why I'm begging for a contest at Twickenham this weekend.