***Official*** England in Pakistan

[nehrafan]

Australia never had a world class batting and bowling all-rounder, did that disallow them from being successful?

Aus always had a world class batting lineup, they never had an allrounder but AR in test cricket is not essential, unlike spinners which are as they play a VITAL role in a match.

 

[nehrafan]

Don't think Windies were renowned for their spin options either.

Yes they didn't had any quality spinner, but they played with 4 world class pacers, and even though England too play with 4 pacers, the English pacers are not in the same class of the great WI pacers!!!

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Aus always had a world class batting lineup, they never had an allrounder but AR in test cricket is not essential, unlike spinners which are as they play a VITAL role in a match.

That'd be how the world's top side from the early '80s to 1995 didn't have a spinner or a decent all-rounder, then.

 

[nehrafan]

That'd be how the world's top side from the early '80s to 1995 didn't have a spinner or a decent all-rounder, then.

If you are talking about WI side , then i would once again like to point out that WI use to play with 4 pacers who were all one of the best in the world, as such the absence of a quality spinner wasn't needed. UNfortunately that's not the same case with England, their pacers are very good, but not as destructive as the Great WI pacers of 80's.

I don't think WI was a force in early to mid 90's.

 

[greg]

If you are talking about WI side , then i would once again like to point out that WI use to play with 4 pacers who were all one of the best in the world, as such the absence of a quality spinner wasn't needed. UNfortunately that's not the same case with England, their pacers are very good, but not as destructive as the Great WI pacers of 80's.

I don't think WI was a force in early to mid 90's.

One series loss in the first half of the 1990s? I suppose it depends what you mean by "a force". They were obviously fading a bit, but they were still comfortably fighting it out for best team in the World.

 

[tooextracool]

Giles - obvious

there is no 'obvious' reason to replace giles, because there isnt a considerably better option in the country.

Harmy - was generally good but, for the umpteenth series in succession, underperformed.

and by umpteenth you mean 2?
as far as im concerned harmison did his job in this series without exactly being brilliant.

 

[tooextracool]

I fully understand the value of a five man attack and, as such, have been calling for Watson's inclusion in the Aus team for 12 months.

that one made my day.....

 

[tooextracool]

So you're saying that Giles would do a better job relatively than Watson?.

yes, because giles when the conditions suits him can actually bowl. watson cant bowl to save his life.

 

[tooextracool]

Aussies have dropped a bat averaging nearly 50.

yes too bad they dropped the wrong one.....

 

[marc71178]

and one of the most destructive batsman namely Gilchrist.

So the likes of Pietersen and Flintoff aren't destructive then?

 

[marc71178]

England has a batting lineup too brittle to be a world-class one as of now - newbies like Strauss, Pietersen and Bell might turn out to be good but so far, they are just newbies.

So how long does Strauss have to play to be regarded as not a newbie then?

 

[marc71178]

Aus always had a world class batting lineup

So what happened in the Ashes then?

 

[tooextracool]

Flintoff was the only player who consistently contributed (with either bat or ball) to every test match (outside Lords).

SP jones bowled better than flintoff in almost every test match.

 

[tooextracool]

So how long does Strauss have to play to be regarded as not a newbie then?

for one thing, he has to score runs in the subcontinent.

 

[social]

yes, because giles when the conditions suits him can actually bowl. watson cant bowl to save his life.

2.5 wickets per test at an ave of 40 from 50 tests says differently.

Based on your criteria, Clarke should play as a spinner in the vain hope that a Chennai pitch appears every now and again.

As for Watson, he has been picked as a batsman that can bowl 10-15 overs a day.

But prior to his injury, he was about the quickest bowler in Aus and has the potential to be something.

People tend to forget that Flintoff at 24 was a pretty average batsman and bowler.

On all likelihood, Watson will end up as a better batsman than Flintoff and a serviceable bowling option.

 

[Barney Rubble]

for one thing, he has to score runs in the subcontinent.

Surely being a newbie is a time thing, rather than a performance thing? I'd class someone with 19 Tests under their belt as "not a newbie" - if they've all come consecutively like Strauss' have, you know he's in the team for the long haul, and that he's obviously settle in fairly well to Test cricket.

You'd be perfectly justified in saying he hasn't proven his quality until he scores runs on the Subcontinent, but to my mind he's not classed as a newbie anymore.

 

[greg]

SP jones bowled better than flintoff in almost every test match.

SP Jones didn't play in the last test, and didn't do an awful lot (although he wasn't really given the chance) at Edgbaston. Anyway that would only strengthen my case anyway. If you notice I was arguing AGAINST the notion that England were a one-man team.

 

[nehrafan]

So what happened in the Ashes then?

L L!

Even the great WI team of 80's performed poorly with bat against Imran's Pak in Pak and lost the series.

Can't judge a team's performance on the basis of one series!

 

[tooextracool]

2.5 wickets per test at an ave of 40 from 50 tests says differently.

no it doesnt, because it includes performances when the pitches havent suited him, which has happened a hell of a lot.

 

[tooextracool]

Surely being a newbie is a time thing, rather than a performance thing? I'd class someone with 19 Tests under their belt as "not a newbie" - if they've all come consecutively like Strauss' have, you know he's in the team for the long haul, and that he's obviously settle in fairly well to Test cricket.

You'd be perfectly justified in saying he hasn't proven his quality until he scores runs on the Subcontinent, but to my mind he's not classed as a newbie anymore.

fair enough, maybe i was looking for 'unproven' because hes still not a proven player against spin.