***Official*** England in Pakistan

[greg]

It was England's first series victory in Pakistan.
.

Second, but who's counting

 

[luckyeddie]

Tiny, pedantic point, but I think we actually won a series in the early 60s under Dexter IIRC.

Sorry, I forgot.

First time we ever played there, of course.

 

[luckyeddie]

Second, but who's counting

You?

 

[Jono]

Really, some of you Englishmen are turning into quite the whinners.

Turning?

I kid I kid

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well we all know 'whinners' was a Freudian slip anyway.

 

[luckyeddie]

Really, some of you Englishmen are turning into quite the whinners.

Poor show, Beleg. Can't even spell 'winners'.

 

[steds]

It's about time the ICC stepped in, these pitches are ridiculous and unfair to England.

Oh shut up. Both teams bat and bowl on the same pitch, it is no more unfair to England than England's opposition. The team that uses the pitch better wil ultimately win. Blaming the pitch for a bad performance is poor form.

 

[greg]

Oh shut up. Both teams bat and bowl on the same pitch, it is no more unfair to England than England's opposition. The team that uses the pitch better wil ultimately win. Blaming the pitch for a bad performance is poor form.

Er, slightly missing the point, regardless of whether it is a valid one

 

[steds]

Er, slightly missing the point, regardless of whether it is a valid one

I don't care about the point. People constantly whinging about the pitches is really annoying.

 

[greg]

I don't care about the point. People constantly whinging about the pitches is really annoying.

Do you think that England just shouldn't have bothered with any warm-up matches then? I don't think anyone really cares about who wins these games, so implying that that is the motivation for the complaint is just wrong.

 

[open365]

Poor show, Beleg. Can't even spell 'winners'.

Greg,how can you complain about the pitch?where you even there?(if so,then your still over reacting)

 

[greg]

Greg,how can you complain about the pitch?where you even there?(if so,then your still over reacting)

Er, I'm not.

 

[steds]

Do you think that England just shouldn't have bothered with any warm-up matches then? I don't think anyone really cares about who wins these games, so implying that that is the motivation for the complaint is just wrong.

Fair enough. You're right there. I still think hiding behind a pitch and moaning instead of admitting it was a poor batting performance is wrong, though.

 

[open365]

Er, I'm not.

well scaly piscine then.

 

[greg]

Fair enough. You're right there. I still think hiding behind a pitch and moaning instead of admitting it was a poor batting performance is wrong, though.

Well we don't really know do we? A poor (/"bowler friendly") pitch is certainly a justification for a low score, which is a different thing. All that really matters is what happens in the tests though, anyway - it's certainly valid to think that a performance on a grassy seamer's paradise is probably not a great indication for what might or might not happen on a grassless graveyard. It seems to me that a lot of the comment is along the lines of "England should be scoring more runs because the opposition are second rate", rather than because of a proper assessment of the conditions.

 

[Beleg]

greg posted,

Frankly on that tour securing a draw would have been an excellent result. And I don't really see what "winning in the last five minutes" has got to do with anything. All it says it that Pakistan would have been saved by time. For that to be described as an ordinary performance would require an assessment that Pakistan were a terrible team.

Again, anothing red herring.

No. But your continuous assessment of the win as 'extra-ordinary' makes it sound as if England was the worst team in the world and they came out of nowhere to win the series. The fact that they competed on an equal level for the first two test matches should show that there was nothing extra-ordinary about their win. They bowled well and were helped by the Pakistan batsman on their way to securing what is essentially a lucky win.

Of course it's evidence. Not conclusive evidence or even proof, but evidence all the same.

Nice defination of 'evidence' you have there.

*Beleg before the Ashes*

'of course England's gonna loose this one, why didn't they loose the last 6 odd or so? Stands to reason it would be the same again'

 

[Neil Pickup]

Pitches like this should not be permitted in any cricket, period. Eighteen wickets should never fall on day one.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Pitches like this should not be permitted in any cricket, period. Eighteen wickets should never fall on day one.

Exactly, and Pakistan have obviously gone out of their way to create pitches like this (to mess up England's preparations) which is why as I said earlier the ICC should step in. But of course they won't do anything and Steds will probably come up with some more irrelevant guff.

 

[greg]

greg posted,



Again, anothing red herring.

No. But your continuous assessment of the win as 'extra-ordinary' makes it sound as if England was the worst team in the world and they came out of nowhere to win the series.

I didn't say their win was extra-ordinary, I denied your claim that their performance (based in part on looking at other scorecards in the series) was "ordinary". Anyway there's obviously a language barrier here. In England if someone describes a performance as "ordinary" it can usually be taken as a euphemism for something approximating to "poor".

Nice defination of 'evidence' you have there.

*Beleg before the Ashes*

'of course England's gonna loose this one, why didn't they loose the last 6 odd or so? Stands to reason it would be the same again'

Of course past performance can in certain circumstances (but not the stock market! ) be used as evidence for future performance. Again you have completely failed to appreciate my distinction between "evidence" and "conclusive evidence" or proof. Just because you have evidence of something doesn't mean it is true/will happen. I and most other people expect the pitches in the tests (deliberately or otherwise) to be of a completely different character to those they have encountered thus far. Past events provide evidence for this belief, but of course it may not happen. I'll bet it will though

 

[luckyeddie]

Of course past performance can in certain circumstances (but not the stock market! ) be used as evidence for future performance.

Don't take up roulette.