***Official*** England in Pakistan

[greg]

Fair enough, but I dont necessarily agree with the retention of Giles and, to a lesser extent Jones, as both have had ample opportunities and have been proven not to be up to scratch.

Well you're obviously looking for something from Giles that most England fans aren't. I suppose that's the difference. Wickets when the conditions are strongly in his favour, giving the captain relative control when he needs it (you quote him going at 3+ during the Ashes, but this was pretty good in the context of the series), giving some variety and the quick bowlers a rest (which in turn helps them to perform better) and very useful runs down the order are what we are looking for. And over the last few years we have pretty reliably got that from him.

Why sacrifice that for a Warne that we don't have? There are times when a very good reading of the pitch in advance could justify his exclusion in favour of another batsman, although there are few batsmen in England with the temperament that Giles has for batting in pressure situations - which means there is not actually that much to be gained. The coherent calls for such a move after Lords actually had far more to do with the poor form of Vaughan and Flintoff (with Bell in the middle order as well) than with his problems there.

 

[marc71178]

The Ashes was nothing more than a continuation of ordinary bowling from him. I think he averaged well over 40 against SA and was absolutely "milked" by all their batsmen.

"Absolutely milked" for 3.21 an over - when SA were scoring a fair bit in excess of it?

And if he only bowled so ordinarily, how come he removed every one of your top 8 at one time or another and had (as with every other bowler in the 5 man unit) performed his role and stepped up on at least one occasion to do the damage,

 

[marc71178]

Fair enough, but I dont necessarily agree with the retention of Giles and, to a lesser extent Jones, as both have had ample opportunities and have been proven not to be up to scratch.

So go on then,. tell us who to replace them, since you obviously know so much...

 

[luckyeddie]

As usual

A dummy spit when people fail to adhere to your golden rule: Thou shalt not criticise anything English

Not in the slightest - criticise away if the criticism is justified and not just empty bile-flavoured rhetoric.

I entered this Giles Jones Bell nonsense right at the death (of your argument) because it was too good an opportunity to miss.

I repeat - if they were so bad, how come your mob ended up losing?

 

[luckyeddie]

Tell you what, why dont you explain to me how:

a. Jones' batting prowess outweighs the fact that he drops more chances than he accepts; or

b. Giles' batting and fielding counter-balance the fact that he is neither economical or penetrative as a bowler; or

c. England play their weakest batsman in perhaps the most vital position in the order;
or, alternatively,

d. England has no back-up and these players are simply the best of the bunch.

I dont expect a reply as any answer would contemplate a weakness in the English set-up and we cant have that, can we.

a) I can't - he would have been my third-choice keeper
b) Strawman argument - total rubbish. He got out every single one of your batsmen at one time or another.
c) Can't argue with that.
d) Which is why I didn't agree with the basis of your 'drop them' argument.

As far as your throwaway is concerned, why didn't you answer my question about how come the world's best side couldn't beat 8 men?

 

[Beleg]

My choice of the playing 11 at Multan would be:

1. Salman Butt
2. Shoaib Malik (out of desperation really)
3. YoYo
4. Inzy
5. Younis
6. Kamal
7. Akmal
8. Shoaib
9. Shabbir
10. Mushtaq
11. Kaneria

The pitch isn't likely to have much in it for a finger spinner. For all internation matches played to date, It has been an absolutely road. It's also interesting to note that the most successful spinners here so far have both been leggies, Kaneria against Bangladesh and Kumble against Pakistan. Saqlain fared horribly against India and Arshad Khan doesn't even share his variety or canniness.

And than you can always ask Shoaib Malik to turn his arm over if you are really desperate for some offies.

Shoaib and Shabbir are easily the two best pacers in Pakistan and should be automatic selections.

Can't see how they can slot Raza in as a middle order batsman. Substituting him for Kamal will be a grave mistake.

Though one can perhaps argue for Afridi's selection in place of Mushtaq/Malik. Not only would it provide Pakistan with an extra half-decent batsman but also with a spinning option pretty different from others of its ilk.

 

[luckyeddie]

Fair enough, but I dont necessarily agree with the retention of Giles and, to a lesser extent Jones, as both have had ample opportunities and have been proven not to be up to scratch.

Bell is a different case as he is young enough and obviously has talent. However, he certainly shouldnt be batting at no. 4, particularly with how vulnerable Vaughan has been recently.

Imagine the rhetoric and invective that would have come from you if England had dropped Giles, Bell and Jones after the first test and replaced them with (say) Udal, Smith and Foster. Not only that, imagine the negative messages it would have sent out. As it was, the headlines after Lord's were "Here we go again".

You most certainly would have had a field day, the English press would have, and the opposition camp would have inflicted their first real 'mental scars' and we would have been on the way to Glenn McGrath's 5-0.

It's true that there are alternatives to any or all of the players you mentioned, but a knee-jerk reaction is still a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

My choice for the Pakistan team would be.

Salman Butt
Shahid Afridi (why isn't Hameed playing?)
Younis Khan
Mohammad Yousuf
Inzamam ul Haq
Asim Kamal
Kamran Akmal
Shoaib Akhtar
Shabbir Ahmed
Mushtaq Ahmed
Danish Kaneria

You can really throw that opening spot to anyone. Afridi, Malik or Raza, though I'd expect Raza won't go for the lack of another bowling option, even though averages say he's a better choice.

 

[open365]

i've been changing my mind about the wicket keeping position ever since Jones debut in the Windies but now i'm certain that

a)Read will never play another international
b)and nor should he

Jones may drop chances,but his batting prowess is to great an asset to lose,his batting can change games,like at Trent Bridge.not only did he make 85 himself,but he allowed Flintoff to make a century.
could Chris Read ever do that

Gile's economy rate is 2.82 which i would defintely class as economical.His average suffers a bit because IMO,he doesn't get a lot of give-away wickets.From what i saw of him in the Ashes,most of the wickets he got were through bowling good balls,not batsman giving their wickets away.
He is the best spinner England have.

Bell really isn't that bad,his technique warrants him batting at 4 and you must admit,playing your first ever full series against the best team in the world is no easy task.

 

[social]

"Absolutely milked" for 3.21 an over - when SA were scoring a fair bit in excess of it?

And if he only bowled so ordinarily, how come he removed every one of your top 8 at one time or another and had (as with every other bowler in the 5 man unit) performed his role and stepped up on at least one occasion to do the damage,

If you watched the SA series, you would know that Giles bowled as he usually does - negative lines at or outside leg-stump with little chance of taking wickets unless the batsman plays a rash shot.

In Aus cricket circles, the term "milk" means to keep a bowler on and knock the ball around the field continuously for easy singles.

Kallis is a past master at it and a bowler like that for him is matter from heaven as he can accumulate runs steadily without taking any risks and also with full knowledge that there are very few options for being dismissed.

This is my, and virtually any cricket watcher's, biggest criticism of Giles. Scoring runs off him is not particularly difficult and it can be done with minimal risk.

 

[social]

Imagine the rhetoric and invective that would have come from you if England had dropped Giles, Bell and Jones after the first test and replaced them with (say) Udal, Smith and Foster. Not only that, imagine the negative messages it would have sent out. As it was, the headlines after Lord's were "Here we go again".

You most certainly would have had a field day, the English press would have, and the opposition camp would have inflicted their first real 'mental scars' and we would have been on the way to Glenn McGrath's 5-0.

It's true that there are alternatives to any or all of the players you mentioned, but a knee-jerk reaction is still a knee-jerk reaction.

To be honest, I dont think anyone could have argued with the selectors if they had dropped Giles and Jones after Lords - both had horrible games to follow very poor tours of SA. The fact that they retained them was a bonus to Aus.

Bell was never going to be dropped as he is a young player that the selectors want to invest time in.

England's selection policy contributed towards team harmony (although as a former bowler, I do not know how forgiving I would be to Jones after a while) but rates well behind the performances of their leading players and McGrath stepping on a ball as reasons for their success.

 

[social]

i've been changing my mind about the wicket keeping position ever since Jones debut in the Windies but now i'm certain that

a)Read will never play another international
b)and nor should he

Jones may drop chances,but his batting prowess is to great an asset to lose,his batting can change games,like at Trent Bridge.not only did he make 85 himself,but he allowed Flintoff to make a century.
could Chris Read ever do that

Gile's economy rate is 2.82 which i would defintely class as economical.His average suffers a bit because IMO,he doesn't get a lot of give-away wickets.From what i saw of him in the Ashes,most of the wickets he got were through bowling good balls,not batsman giving their wickets away.
He is the best spinner England have.

Bell really isn't that bad,his technique warrants him batting at 4 and you must admit,playing your first ever full series against the best team in the world is no easy task.

Jones' batting is a bonus, but is it good enough to warrant a position in the side when his keeping is so bad? (BTW, his 85 should've been terminated on 30. Even the a batsmen as poor as Read supposedly is will eventually make runs if they are the beneficiaries of decisions like the one he got.)

My biggest issue with him is that in 18 months, his keeping has not improved 1 per cent.

The potential for improvement also colours my view on Giles. He is a very average test bowler that is coming off 2 very average series.

Just because England won both series, surely it doesnt mean that they should stop striving for improvement. If Jones and Giles have reached the limit of their potential (and consistent standards of performances would seem to indicate that they have), consideration must be given to drafting in other players.

 

[shankar]

3 seamers are never going to be world beaters, no matter how good they are, in India, and saying Warne 'wasn't in great form' is being kind, it was the worst series of his career. Also, when did Tait come into the picture in 2001?!

McGrath and Gillespie were nothing short of brilliant in that series. Warne was bowling very well until the 2nd innings at Calcutta. He'd had Dravid in all sorts of problems up until that point. But after that test the Indians got on top him and he finally ended up with poor figures for the overall series. Just because he ended up with a poor average we can't conclude that he was out of form. Infact, IMO he bowled better in that series than in the 2004 series where he had better figures. You said it yourself:

From just watching him, McGrath was bowling just as well, but not taking wickets. Just because his figures aren't good doesn't mean he didn't bowl well.

 

[luckyeddie]

Jones' batting etc
Giles's bowling etc

If Jones and Giles have reached the limit of their potential (and consistent standards of performances would seem to indicate that they have), consideration must be given to drafting in other players.

You are yet to name your alternatives (certainly for Giles), and without that, you are still guilty of relying on a strawman argument.

As far as McGrath's injury is concerned, it's the second-largest single blow Australia could have suffered (Warne doing something similar being the largest). The problem was, though, no-one stuck his hand up and stepped up to the plate.

 

[greg]

Jones' batting is a bonus, but is it good enough to warrant a position in the side when his keeping is so bad? (BTW, his 85 should've been terminated on 30. Even the a batsmen as poor as Read supposedly is will eventually make runs if they are the beneficiaries of decisions like the one he got.)

.

You mean it should've been terminated because one could have normally expected Bucknor to make his usual poor decision and give him out instead of the brilliant decision that he did make?

Analysis of TV replays suggested it wasn't out (or certainly was massively inconclusive), Jones says he didn't hit it, but you apparently know better from thousands of miles away.

 

[greg]

Just because England won both series, surely it doesnt mean that they should stop striving for improvement. If Jones and Giles have reached the limit of their potential (and consistent standards of performances would seem to indicate that they have), consideration must be given to drafting in other players.

Certainly Jones hasn't reached anywhere near the limit of his potential with the bat.

 

[Shahid_afridi]

My choice of the playing 11 at Multan would be:

1. Salman Butt
2. Shoaib Malik (out of desperation really)
3. YoYo
4. Inzy
5. Younis
6. Kamal
7. Akmal
8. Shoaib
9. Shabbir
10. Mushtaq
11. Kaneria

The pitch isn't likely to have much in it for a finger spinner. For all internation matches played to date, It has been an absolutely road. It's also interesting to note that the most successful spinners here so far have both been leggies, Kaneria against Bangladesh and Kumble against Pakistan. Saqlain fared horribly against India and Arshad Khan doesn't even share his variety or canniness.

And than you can always ask Shoaib Malik to turn his arm over if you are really desperate for some offies.

Shoaib and Shabbir are easily the two best pacers in Pakistan and should be automatic selections.

Can't see how they can slot Raza in as a middle order batsman. Substituting him for Kamal will be a grave mistake.

Though one can perhaps argue for Afridi's selection in place of Mushtaq/Malik. Not only would it provide Pakistan with an extra half-decent batsman but also with a spinning option pretty different from others of its ilk.

i would replace shabbir with sami...sami has turned into a great test bowler and will really trouble the english batsmen IMO.

 

[Scaly piscine]

i would replace shabbir with sami...sami has turned into a great test bowler and will really trouble the english batsmen IMO.

Great is an overused term... but that's the worst offence I've seen so far.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

i would replace shabbir with sami...sami has turned into a great test bowler and will really trouble the english batsmen IMO.

Um, in the history of Test cricket there are four players who's bowled as much as Sami and still have a bowling average worse than him

Greg Matthews, Aus (whose batting average of 41 kinda makes up for it)
Paul Wiseman, NZ (innocuous spinner)
Viv Richards, WI (again, batting kinda makes up for it)
Carl Hooper, WI (again, batting kinda makes up for it)

So one pure bowler who is worse than Sami in Test history. If that constitutes greatness, what's Flintoff like? A demi-god? (or, for that matter, Shoaib...)

 

[Barney Rubble]

Just to change the subject a little, apparently Alex Loudon bowled Marcus Trescothick with his doosra this morning in the nets. Interesting.