***Official*** England in Pakistan

[shaka]

And he gets there, with Hampshire declaring on 714-5

I see quite a few former international English cricketers made runs, including, Nick Knight, Mark Ramprakash, John Crawley obviously. Shows that the old guys still make good runs.

 

[aussie]

Pakistan had the 2 W's and relatively nothing.

England had 3 90+ men.

As for 95/96, how many of this current line-up were around then?

1. Wait so Shoaib, Saqlain & Mushtaq in 99 were nothing please

2. No 2 90 MPH bowlers Jones is no longer in that bracket

3. Well since the Ashes lost the arguement that i've heard people saying not here on CW but around my area is that in Australia's 10 year dominance of world cricket they have battered a whole set of mediocre attacks & when they came up againts england they were found wanting, when the fact was they had faced a few top class attacks in this 10 year period, so it doesn't matter who was in the batting line-up were talking Australian in general....

 

[Choora]

Pakistan had the 2 W's and relatively nothing.

England had 3 90+ men.

As for 95/96, how many of this current line-up were around then?

Saqlain Mustaq was nothing???? Back then he was as good a test bowler as any pacers were.And Mushtaq Ahmed was also a very good test bowler.

As for 90+, well speed is not everything. If you go strickly by that then Pak current attack should be number two in world (since they have two 90+ bowlers) when we all know its not!

 

[marc71178]

In this series of supposed strong attacks - Shoaib took 6 @ 68, Waqar only played 1 game and the most successful seamer was Mohammad Akram.

All in all that is not a hostile attack, which was my point - unless the spinners were bowling at 90 as well.

And Simon Jones did bowl 90+, along with Flintoff and Harmison, which makes 3.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Top argument here Marc. Australia has never faced a good attack until this Ashes series. You're clearly right on the ball and aren't being completely ridiculous and biased at all.

 

[C_C]

In this series of supposed strong attacks - Shoaib took 6 @ 68, Waqar only played 1 game and the most successful seamer was Mohammad Akram.

All in all that is not a hostile attack, which was my point - unless the spinners were bowling at 90 as well.

And Simon Jones did bowl 90+, along with Flintoff and Harmison, which makes 3.

Put it this way- i would take Waqar, Wasim and Akhtar in 99 over any of the english bowlers. Thank you very very much!

This aussie team batted poorly and had a few players outta form for a while.

Like i said, this english attack is NOWHERE as close to the pakistani attacks through the 90s, south african attack through the 90s and i would even take the windies attack of the 90s over this english attack.

 

[wahindiawah]

In this series of supposed strong attacks - Shoaib took 6 @ 68, Waqar only played 1 game and the most successful seamer was Mohammad Akram.

All in all that is not a hostile attack, which was my point - unless the spinners were bowling at 90 as well.

And Simon Jones did bowl 90+, along with Flintoff and Harmison, which makes 3.

Which also suggest that the then Australian batting lineup led by Steven Waugh was so strong that it destroyed the Pakistan bowling attack.

I think that Pakistan bowling lineup was good. Akram, Akhtar,Saqlain and M Akram were a good bowling attack. . I believe that had the '99 Australian batting lineup( which was led by ice man Steven Waugh) faced this present English bowling attack then they would have fared much better than the current Ponting mens.Its true that England has a very good attack, but its also true that Austrlian team, particularly their batters, were not at their level best in the last series.

 

[wahindiawah]

In this series of supposed strong attacks - Shoaib took 6 @ 68, Waqar only played 1 game and the most successful seamer was Mohammad Akram.

All in all that is not a hostile attack, .

Also that figures suggests that the Waugh men destroyed Akhtar and he failed to adjust himself on Aussie pitches, and it doesn't mean that the attack was poor or Akhtar was a lowsy bowler.This is because Akhtar was bowling superbly against most countries that year untill he came accross Waugh's men!!

 

[greg]

Put it this way- i would take Waqar, Wasim and Akhtar in 99 over any of the english bowlers. Thank you very very much!

This aussie team batted poorly and had a few players outta form for a while.

Like i said, this english attack is NOWHERE as close to the pakistani attacks through the 90s, south african attack through the 90s and i would even take the windies attack of the 90s over this english attack.

On what grounds?

 

[wahindiawah]

On what grounds?

Doesn't really matter.Whichever attack was better, had it faced Steven Waugh's men in '99 it would have fared no better than Akram's men.

 

[greg]

Doesn't really matter.Whichever attack was better, had it faced Steven Waugh's men in '99 it would have fared no better than Akram's men.

I was talking to C_C. He doesn't usually make such dramatic statements without having some strong statistical evidence to back him up.

 

[C_C]

I was talking to C_C. He doesn't usually make such dramatic statements without having some strong statistical evidence to back him up.

I am talking of the attack overall.
Waqar-Wasim-Akhtar-Saqlain are superior to the one the English have right now.

 

[greg]

I am talking of the attack overall.
Waqar-Wasim-Akhtar-Saqlain are superior to the one the English have right now.

But you wrote that you would have them over ANY of the English bowlers! I'll accept you must just have got caught up in the moment.

Not that I agree with Marc, but Saqlain doesn't really come into it seeing as he was referring to pace attacks.

 

[marc71178]

Top argument here Marc. Australia has never faced a good attack until this Ashes series. You're clearly right on the ball and aren't being completely ridiculous and biased at all.

So which was the attack which was so hostile and offered so much variation that they faced?

 

[marc71178]

Put it this way- i would take Waqar, Wasim and Akhtar in 99 over any of the english bowlers. Thank you very very much!

If all 3 had been at their peak then yes, but not when 2 of them were declining, and 1 was yet to make an impact.

The fact that all 3 were outperformed by Mohammad Akram says a lot.

 

[Pratters]

and 1 was yet to make an impact.

Will not go into the decline arguement of Wasim Akram with you but Akhtar had made an impact by 99.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So which was the attack which was so hostile and offered so much variation that they faced?

What does being "hostile" have to do with it? As if that is the only criteria by which an attack could be any good? Anyway, so far as hostility goes, I guess the Windies team from 2003 which contained Tino Best and Jermaine Lawson was fairly "hostile". Donald and Hayward are also quite a "hostile" pair. Variation? Well Australia faced Indian teams relatively recently which had a leg-spinner, an off-spinner, and a left and right arm seamer... that's quite varied. Sri Lanka presented a similar team on occasion as well.

Now, as far as quality goes, which is actually a relevant issue, well Australia has faced quality attacks from Pakistan (Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain, Waqar/Shoaib/Saqlain/Kaneria, which were far better than you seem to think), India, Sri Lanka and South Africa over the last few years. Of course, there haven't been that many great attacks in international cricket of late (not that there are ever many!), but when confronted with good bowlers Australia's batsmen have shown themselves to be more than adequate.

It was inevitable of course than fans of X team, whereupon that team broke Australia's long unbeaten run, would claim that Australia were in fact never any good and just never faced opposition as good as said team X, but really there's no evidence to suggest it. Each of Australia's batsmen (excluding perhaps those newest to the team) had significant past success against good bowlers, including against those significantly better than most in England's current team. And while England's bowling attack is very good and does indeed take strength from being a five man attack with some variety, it is not anywhere near as good as you would have to believe to mark it SO FAR ahead of the attacks Australia has thrashed in the past that Australia would be brought down from being utterly dominant to completely exposed. You will find that it is some remarkably good bowling and some uncharacteristically poor performances from certain Australian batsmen as well as some level of age-related decline that led to Australia making moderate totals in the series, rather than being exposed as overrated hacks by the God-like English attack that puts all others to shame.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Will not go into the decline arguement of Wasim Akram with you but Akhtar had made an impact by 99.

Not really, up til the series his figures were:


28 wickets @ 34.60 with just the 1 5-fer.

filtered 10 47 11 5.87 0 0 28 5/43 34.60 1 4 0

 

[Pratters]

If the question of Australia never having to face a quality attack is being presented:

In the subcontinent:

India and Sri Lanka have a good attack

Outside the subcontinent (the more arguable case which may well have been presented - not going to go back the pages)

South Africa
New Zealand with Bond

 

[Pratters]

Not really, up til the series his figures were:


28 wickets @ 34.60 with just the 1 5-fer.

filtered 10 47 11 5.87 0 0 28 5/43 34.60 1 4 0

He had a phse in South Africa where he had South African batsen - good players of pace struggling. Then he got injured. Any one who saw him then agreed he had made an impact and was one talented bloke. The Calcutta test was also a match where he made an impact. Also I would be glad if you could link me to the stats.