***Official*** England in Pakistan

[wpdavid]

Its sad to think that in a country of 60 odd million Giles and Udal are the best we got

Surely it would be better to play a 17-18yo leg spinner to give him some experience. No way would they bowl worse than Udal / Giles has.

Trouble is, judging by their performances in the CC, they're the best we have. Depressing, isn't it. As for throwing in a youngster with no track record, the Chris Schofield experience has put me off that.

 

[open365]

Ahhhh,now i see Wanrne's master plan all along....

go to Hampshire,improve Udal just enough to make him play in Pakistan but not enough to stop him being absolute *****,then sit back and laugh As Inzi,Yousaf,Butt,Khan,Akmal,Akthar and Hassan play him like they would a 12 year old.

 

[Hazza]

...play him like they would a 12 year old.

I'm 13 and could probably dismiss Ahktar for under 38

 

[ClownSymonds]

where were they in the ashes then ?

Good question. But really, does one bad series for them make Strauss and Trescothick better? I think not.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm such a fair-weather fan. As soon as Shoaib holed out, I gave up on the highlights!

It was agony at work, I kept trying not to look @ the beeb's site in the desperate hope that a wicket would go down, but to no avail. Fair play to Pakistan; it's a wee while since we've been so comprehensively spanked in a day's play for ages. The 4th day @ Lord's in the 1st Ashes test was pretty bad, but the jig was already up then; here we had an outside chance of winning with a good bowling display.

Funny how nobody was with me on Udal before the series.

I was! I'm certain I mentioned it seemed an about-face in Fletcher's hitherto youth-first selection policy.

Two observations:

1) We lack a Thorpe-shaped rock around which we can hand our innings. I can't ever see KP or Fred filling his shoes;

2) In English sport we seem better at building towards singular memorable moments (2003 RU WC, 2005 Ashes) than sustained dynasties. I think it can be partly explained by our relatively shallow talent pool; our best XI/XV are v competitive but one or two absences and it becomes apparent our back-up isn't so flash.

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[ClownSymonds]

I always thought it was a terribly foolish mistake for England to discard Thorpe and basically say that they no longer need a solid, orthodox batsman on the team. This attitude of aggression they have now is only as good as their luck. Fletcher was saying that he didn't mind Pietersen and Flintoff throwing their wickets away, because "that's how they play", but I don't think that any Test batsman should be excused like that.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I always thought it was a terribly foolish mistake for England to discard Thorpe and basically say that they no longer need a solid, orthodox batsman on the team. This attitude of aggression they have now is only as good as their luck. Fletcher was saying that he didn't mind Pietersen and Flintoff throwing their wickets away, because "that's how they play", but I don't think that any Test batsman should be excused like that.

I think thats totally wrong.

Australia have shown that aggression works, and to a similar (but not quite there yet) extent so have England over the last 2 years. So we're going to lose a series to Pakistan in Pakistan, its hardly the end of the world considering even the greatest of England sides struggled there in the past.

I'll dare say Pakistan will struggle as much if not more when they tour England next year.

 

[wpdavid]

I always thought it was a terribly foolish mistake for England to discard Thorpe and basically say that they no longer need a solid, orthodox batsman on the team. This attitude of aggression they have now is only as good as their luck. Fletcher was saying that he didn't mind Pietersen and Flintoff throwing their wickets away, because "that's how they play", but I don't think that any Test batsman should be excused like that.

Totally agree about Fred & KP.

But I think Thorpe would have retired after the Ashes whatever happened, so we'd have been without him anyway.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

2) In English sport we seem better at building towards singular memorable moments (2003 RU WC, 2005 Ashes) than sustained dynasties. I think it can be partly explained by our relatively shallow talent pool; our best XI/XV are v competitive but one or two absences and it becomes apparent our back-up isn't so flash.

True, but at the same time this is a part of the build-up to the 2007 Ashes. By that time, Bello will have sorted his mindset (hopefully, else we find an alternative - certainly making a bunch of runs against Kaneria is going to help a bit - shame India haven't got a leg spinner who can turn it miles he can test himself against), and Fred won't be having subcontinent blues, hopefully. After all, it's only two years since England got almost as humiliated by Sri Lanka (with the team, then as now, including a useless spinner, a virtual debutant bowler, and Collingwood) - and they weren't too shabby after that.

 

[wpdavid]

I think thats totally wrong.

Australia have shown that aggression works, and to a similar (but not quite there yet) extent so have England over the last 2 years. So we're going to lose a series to Pakistan in Pakistan, its hardly the end of the world considering even the greatest of England sides struggled there in the past.

I'll dare say Pakistan will struggle as much if not more when they tour England next year.

I wonder if they will. Shoaib & Naved will enjoy more helpful conditions just as much as the English attack, so unless our batters show a bit more discipline then we're going to see a lot more low scores from our boys. And the only English teams to lose in Pakistan were the mid80's vintage, so we're not in good company right now. And even they only lost one game each time.

As for the olde Aus comparison, I know they've scored quickly, but that's basically against the moderate attacks that make up test cricket nowadays. And, even allowing for that, their top 6 just don't throw it away as often as our guys have done. They do have a"Plan B" when circumstances demand.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I wonder if they will. Shoaib & Naved will enjoy more helpful conditions just as much as the English attack, so unless our batters show a bit more discipline then we're going to see a lot more low scores from our boys. And the only English teams to lose in Pakistan were the mid80's vintage, so we're not in good company right now. And even they only lost one game each time.

As for the olde Aus comparison, I know they've scored quickly, but that's basically against the moderate attacks that make up test cricket nowadays. And, even allowing for that, their top 6 just don't throw it away as often as our guys have done. They do have a"Plan B" when circumstances demand.

Well ill agree the bowlers will do well but from what ive seen of the Pakistan batting with the exception of a couple they wont stand a chance if the ball is swinging regularly.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think thats totally wrong.

Australia have shown that aggression works, and to a similar (but not quite there yet) extent so have England over the last 2 years. So we're going to lose a series to Pakistan in Pakistan, its hardly the end of the world considering even the greatest of England sides struggled there in the past.

I'll dare say Pakistan will struggle as much if not more when they tour England next year.

I'm just a bit worried we seem to be more or less totally without a plan B if the aggression fails tho. Without wishing to overstate the obvious a lot of our recent success has been due to our seamers; now I personally think it was reasonably predictable they wouldn't have the same joy in Pakistan as they've had England, SA & The Windies (our spinning being so woeful hasn't helped them either, they've been overbowled on this tour, Fred & Harmy particularly). This leaves us more reliant on our batters giving us a solid platform. At least twice in this series (2nd innings of the 1st & 1st innings here) we've been crying out for a Thrope-esque innings from someone; Bell seemed to do the job ok in the 1st innings of the 2nd, but I don't think he's quite ready to step into Thorpey's shoes just yet. I reckon it'd be nice if KP or Fred could play a nuggety, grinding innings in the 2nd innings here, just to show thye can!

 

[wpdavid]

Well ill agree the bowlers will do well but from what ive seen of the Pakistan batting with the exception of a couple they wont stand a chance if the ball is swinging regularly.

Fair point.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Fair point.

Shush, that borders on optimism! Back in the trenches with you

 

[Top_Cat]

I always thought it was a terribly foolish mistake for England to discard Thorpe and basically say that they no longer need a solid, orthodox batsman on the team. This attitude of aggression they have now is only as good as their luck. Fletcher was saying that he didn't mind Pietersen and Flintoff throwing their wickets away, because "that's how they play", but I don't think that any Test batsman should be excused like that.

Yeh but that's not really an accurate representation of how they play. Both Freddie and KP are also at their best in a tough situation, as KP showed in the Lords Test, he can knuckle-down with the best of them. I've never seen a straighter bat than he showed in the first-innings of that Test when Glenn McGrath annihilated the English top-order. And they combined well in the second-Test when the match was really on the line. The fact that can send the ball into orbit means they'll get out to silly shots on occasion but both of them are also very tough to dismiss when they put their minds to it.

 

[a10khan]

Well ill agree the bowlers will do well but from what ive seen of the Pakistan batting with the exception of a couple they wont stand a chance if the ball is swinging regularly.

they might struggle a bit, sure. they aint really use to playing the moving ball alot, but u cant say they wont stand a chance!

 

[Blaze]

England need to sort out what they want from KP and Flintoff. Together in the middle order they can be such a strength if they come off but if they don't they are a bit of a weak point. From looking at some of their dismissals in recent times I would suggest that they are trying to attack a little too much. I guess it's a case of having a sense of timing. Knowing when to go for the big shots and knowing when to knuckle down, because they are both more than capable of knuckling down IMO.

Another quick thing, Ashley Giles might be a really nice guy but come on England he has to go. They might as well pick another batsman and get someone like Tresco or even Vaughan to play the containing role and keep things tight whilst giving the quicker guys a rest until they find a genuine wicket taking spinner.

 

[a10khan]

Something needs to be done abt the loss of overs like that. Maybe 6-day tests is then really not that bad of a thing in Pak at this time of the year.

 

[wpdavid]

Trivia time.

Collingwood was the 4th English allrounder to be dismissed or not out in the 90's in a test in Pakistan for what would have been his 1st test 100. 2 of his predecessors never did go on to make a test hundred.

Deatils please, preferably without cheating.

Oh, and it also happened to one of our wicket keepers.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Craig White for one. I'm not old enough to do the others without cheating!