***Official*** England in Pakistan

[Jono]

I think they're in apathetic mode generally, similar to their 'efforts' at the end of the SA tour.

Except this time England didn't win the test series. How about trying to win something?

Second best ODI team in the world eh?

 

[andyc]

Except this time England didn't win the test series. How about trying to win something?

Second best ODI team in the world eh?

That made me chuckle

 

[Beleg]

So Akmal now has three centuries and not a single fifty... any bets on how many tons he is going to score before he pulls off a fifty?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Except this time England didn't win the test series. How about trying to win something?

Second best ODI team in the world eh?

Why don't India try winning ODI finals, just for a change?

 

[TT Boy]

Pathetic batting and bowling by England. What were the batsmen doing, playing at 50 overs, why not go down in a blaze not with a whimper, only Andrew Flintoff knew that you had to hit runs to win, complete shower. Jones and Blackwell were padding up to the spinners then got out in the most stupidest fashion (Sorry no Harmison did, reverse sweep to slip) . This isn’t Taunton and Blackwell is woefully out of his depth. As for the bowling, so naïve, how many times do you have to get smacked over the fence to realise, pitch the ball up, it’s a joke.

Who have we got left in Pakistan that hasn’t featured so far, just Kabir Ali?.

 

[Barney Rubble]

A god-awful effort from England today, comprehensively smashed in all departments. Flintoff was the only one in either aspect of the game who looked like he actually wanted to win.

And another thing - Ian Blackwell once again England's most economical bowler, and once again underused. Why Tresco insisted on using Vikram "Specialist Fielder" Solanki instead of a couple more overs of Blackwell I will never know. Has Blackwell actually been our most consistently good bowler in this series, despite not actually taking a wicket? It could be argued that he has, which says something about the terrible quality of our bowling this series.

Credit to Pakistan, some stunning batting and efficient bowling. They should wrap up the series comfortably next Monday.

 

[andyc]

Why don't India try winning ODI finals, just for a change?

That did it for me too

 

[Barney Rubble]

Who have we got left in Pakistan that hasn’t featured so far, just Kabir Ali?.

Him and the great Shaun Udal.

Mind you, Boycs, Aggers and Angus Fraser are still there......

 

[Steulen]

Except this time England didn't win the test series. How about trying to win something?

Second best ODI team in the world eh?

Are people seriously suggesting England is the second best ODI team? Hard to believe. They simply do not have a good enough bowling attack. Harmison is an out and out strike bowler who will go for runs, and apart from the ever-improving Flintoff they don't have any other top-class ODI bowlers. Plunkett looks promising, but would be fourth or fifth choice in any decent attack.

On the batting side, when they can field a wholly fit team they do have the fast scorers (Trecothick, Pietersen, Flintoff), but they lack a dependable anchor.

Currently, Pakistan do seem to have their balance right thanks to a few very handy allrounders (Malik, Afridi, Razzaq), three good ODI fast bowlers (Akhtar, Sami, ul-Hasan), and specialist batsmen capable of both anchoring and accelerating.

I'd put Pakistan in contention for second with South Africa at the moment, with England languishing in the midfield of mediocrity with the likes of India, Sri Lanka, New Zealand and West Indies.

 

[Jono]

Why don't India try winning ODI finals, just for a change?

I never claimed they did though.

Whereas you believed England to be the 2nd best ODI team in the world, which is so far from the truth its hilarious.

Not surprising that talking about the Indian ODI team is your only reply though as per usual. No more new tricks in the bag?

 

[ClownSymonds]

England's fighting spirit is quite something.

I think England have finally realized that they are nothing more than mediocre, and have decided to stop defying the natural order of the cricketing universe by going back to the depths where they belong.

Pakistan are a great side, and I don't think there should be any question about them being second best (at least in ODIs) at the moment. South Africa, as they have shown in India and will show in Australia, are overrated. I'd even put Pakistan right up there with Australia in ODIs, especially if Australia are going to keep fielding crap bowling attacks like they did against New Zealand. The thing about it is that Pakistan's players are mostly young, and the team should get even stronger in the future, even if they do lose Inzamam and Shoaib.

Kamran Akmal has been amazing. Gilchrist, watch out. Your records aren't as safe as you would've liked to have thought, and MS Dhoni might not be the real threat.

 

[Jono]

Are people seriously suggesting England is the second best ODI team? Hard to believe.

Believe it or not... yes! I guess you haven't made yourself familiar with this thread:
http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=15727

With gems like:

England are IMO the 2nd best ODI team in the World, we got Super Subbed against Australia in the Chellenge but in the Triangular tournament us and Australia were equal. We didn't have many of our best players against SA, hence we got mauled, same in last summer's Triangular tournament. Other than that, our results have been good.

It makes them one of the sides in the middle when it's a meaningless ODI, when it's a pressure situation (ie World Cup) they're 2nd favourites. England have shown that they can handle the pressure and perform well enough to match anyone - something the other teams (except Australia obviously) haven't done - India and SA choke, NZ don't have anything extra when it comes to the WC, SL are rubbish away from home, Pakistan at least have the potential with one of the best coaches around, WI aren't very good but they're at home and have a genius player that can be enough to help them beat anyone.

To be fair, there were English fans in that thread who realised that their ODI team was far from 2nd in the world (Boy Brumby, Marc).

What I love is the excuse that England don't win ODIs because they don't play their good players, and if they did they'd be 2nd best. Either that, or they are just not trying (excuses for their losses against South Africa in 2004/05 and apparently against Pakistan in 2005/06).

 

[Scaly piscine]

This is a meaningless ODI series, the one in SA was and most series are. England's first ODI series against Australia mattered because it was BEFORE the Test series and there were pyschological points for England to gain (not for Australia to lose - it didn't make much difference to them in the Tests because they'd believe whatever happened that they'd beat England in the Tests, but England needed to beat Australia at some point to give themselves belief that they could beat Australia in the Tests and win the Ashes). As I said when it comes to meaningless ODI series, England are in the pack with most other teams, when it comes to meaningful ODIs they're still the second best side because they go up several notches as they did against Australia.

There's a massive difference between meaningful ODIs and meaningless ODIs. If there was no distinct difference, India win their fair share of finals and Australia would lose their fair share of finals.

 

[Dasa]

There's a massive difference between meaningful ODIs and meaningless ODIs. If there was no distinct difference, India win their fair share of finals and Australia would lose their fair share of finals.

So the tri-series with Australia and Bangladesh where England tied the final was meaningful, whereas the following 3 match series featuring only Australia in the leadup to the Ashes where England lost 2-1 wasn't meaningful. When was the last time England even played in an ODI final before that tri-series...in the Champions Trophy they choked in the final.

Whether you like to believe it or not, England are in the pack along with all teams bar Australia, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in ODIs.

 

[Pratters]

To be considered the best or a near best one day or test team a team has to win much more tournaments, series than they lose in that particular form of the game.

History does not look back at excuses, limitations.

 

[cricket_fan23]

This is a meaningless ODI series, the one in SA was and most series are. England's first ODI series against Australia mattered because it was BEFORE the Test series and there were pyschological points for England to gain (not for Australia to lose - it didn't make much difference to them in the Tests because they'd believe whatever happened that they'd beat England in the Tests, but England needed to beat Australia at some point to give themselves belief that they could beat Australia in the Tests and win the Ashes). As I said when it comes to meaningless ODI series, England are in the pack with most other teams, when it comes to meaningful ODIs they're still the second best side because they go up several notches as they did against Australia.

There's a massive difference between meaningful ODIs and meaningless ODIs. If there was no distinct difference, India win their fair share of finals and Australia would lose their fair share of finals.

BIGGEST.....REACH......EVER.

More spin than Alistair Campbell.

So England are happy to lose all the "meaningless" ODI's and plummet down the rankings.

With all that talk one could be forgiven to being misled into thinking England dominated Aus in their home ODI series.....forgetting of course the fact that they were extatic in gaining a lucky tie at the death in one final and got absolutely slaughtered in the other.

 

[honestbharani]

England basically seem to suck at ODIs away from home. They really need to pull together if they ever want to achieve consistent success in the ODI variety. Is dropping Vaughan and making Freddie the captain an option? A performing captain might just inspire his team, at least in ODIs. Vaughan will lead the test side, obviously. I wonder whether Freddie can have the Kapil Dev effect on England.

 

[Barney Rubble]

England's fighting spirit is quite something.

I think England have finally realized that they are nothing more than mediocre, and have decided to stop defying the natural order of the cricketing universe by going back to the depths where they belong.

Pakistan are a great side, and I don't think there should be any question about them being second best (at least in ODIs) at the moment. South Africa, as they have shown in India and will show in Australia, are overrated. I'd even put Pakistan right up there with Australia in ODIs, especially if Australia are going to keep fielding crap bowling attacks like they did against New Zealand. The thing about it is that Pakistan's players are mostly young, and the team should get even stronger in the future, even if they do lose Inzamam and Shoaib.

Kamran Akmal has been amazing. Gilchrist, watch out. Your records aren't as safe as you would've liked to have thought, and MS Dhoni might not be the real threat.

The bizarre thing about you is I agree with almost every word you ever say, apart from all of those you say about England. Your hatred of us does seem to be blinding you a little bit.

No-one in England with sense ever really thought we were the 2nd best ODI team in the world - we knew we were only mediocre at ODI level. You, however, are making out that we have now been brought back down to earth after our Test success, whereas in fact all you're doing is finding yourself another excuse to have a go at us, and repeat stuff you've already said plenty of times.

You hatred of England is stopping you from becoming a very knowledgeable and valued poster - you don't have to air it at every possible opportunity, your posts will be a lot more fun to read if you don't. I'm sure I hate Australians just as much as you hate Englishmen, I just don't tell everyone about it all the time.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So the tri-series with Australia and Bangladesh where England tied the final was meaningful, whereas the following 3 match series featuring only Australia in the leadup to the Ashes where England lost 2-1 wasn't meaningful. When was the last time England even played in an ODI final before that tri-series...in the Champions Trophy they choked in the final.

Whether you like to believe it or not, England are in the pack along with all teams bar Australia, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in ODIs.

England don't really play in that many tri-series anyway. The second ODI series was pointless, I said the same before it happened - it was immediately after the first ODI series, it was trialling the new supersub/fielding rules and it was just over a week before the first Test. You couldn't expect either side to give everything in those circumstances. As for the CT final it was more the 'back-up' bowling that killed England in the end, and I've always advocated getting rid of Gough anyway (Wharf has probably played his last ODI).

 

[chipmonk]

This is a meaningless ODI series, the one in SA was and most series are. England's first ODI series against Australia mattered because it was BEFORE the Test series and there were pyschological points for England to gain (not for Australia to lose - it didn't make much difference to them in the Tests because they'd believe whatever happened that they'd beat England in the Tests, but England needed to beat Australia at some point to give themselves belief that they could beat Australia in the Tests and win the Ashes). As I said when it comes to meaningless ODI series, England are in the pack with most other teams, when it comes to meaningful ODIs they're still the second best side because they go up several notches as they did against Australia.

There's a massive difference between meaningful ODIs and meaningless ODIs. If there was no distinct difference, India win their fair share of finals and Australia would lose their fair share of finals.

Another piece of Juvenile Deluded Rubbish !