***Official*** England in Pakistan

[Hazza]

and how many times must it be said? ODIs have no direct relation to test match cricket except when it comes to determining form. hes had 1 good series, which would have been ordinary if australia could catch.

The point commented on was weather KP has been proven.

 

[tooextracool]

The point commented on was weather KP has been proven.

and how is he proven in test matches if hes barely had 1 good series?

 

[simmy]

and how is he proven in test matches if hes barely had 1 good series?

Barely? He was the leading run scorer!

 

[Hazza]

and how is he proven in test matches if hes barely had 1 good series?

If you have a brilliant test series against Australia then surely that proves something.

 

[tooextracool]

Barely? He was the leading run scorer!

and he wouldnt even have averaged 40 if australia could catch. when 1 inning inflates statistics as much as it does for KP, id think its clear that he cant be proven.

 

[PY]

Not after the Ashes they didn't

Wahey, we have a winner.

Top first post, welcome.

 

[tooextracool]

If you have a brilliant test series against Australia then surely that proves something.

it proves that he is capable of being a very good batsman. it doesnt prove that he is an excellent player of spin(and i firmly believe that we'll only find that out after he tours india), nor does it prove that he is capable against pace, because he could be worked out in just the next series.

 

[open365]

^er...no.

Harmison ended up with godly figures because he bowled really well to a pretty useless Windies team.

I don't see why people belive the pitch is the most important thing in a cricket match and can be the reason for anything...

 

[tooextracool]

Harmison ended up with godly figures because he bowled really well to a pretty useless Windies team.

and he bowled to the same WI side and struggled in England, except at the oval. AFAIC those pitches were about as seamer friendly as we've seen in the WI for a while.

 

[Scaly piscine]

If you have a brilliant test series against Australia then surely that proves something.

Not in CWland it doesn't. In CWland each player must have played at least 50 Tests before you're allowed to say anything about them. If KP averages 60 after 49 Tests he's still unproven and someone like Laxman is automatically better - it's CW law, apparently.

So the relatively inexperienced side that beat Australia? Just a figment of everyones imagination I'm afraid, because Australia have proved they're better and no-one can come close til the other team has 11 50+ cap players.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

and he bowled to the same WI side and struggled in England, except at the oval. AFAIC those pitches were about as seamer friendly as we've seen in the WI for a while.

And I can back that up. We've not had pitches resembling seamer-friendly in the West Indies for years. When England came, it seemed that the attempt was to finally assist our bowling attack, and the pitches did that. Unfortunately, it also exposed that current West Indian batsmen are so spoiled by flat pitches that they can't handle bounce and pace. In short, it backfired.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not in CWland it doesn't. In CWland each player must have played at least 50 Tests before you're allowed to say anything about them. If KP averages 60 after 49 Tests he's still unproven and someone like Laxman is automatically better - it's CW law, apparently.

So the relatively inexperienced side that beat Australia? Just a figment of everyones imagination I'm afraid, because Australia have proved they're better and no-one can come close til the other team has 11 50+ cap players.

Stop typecasting the mentality of CW based on the mentality of one or two people.

 

[Hazza]

it proves that he is capable of being a very good batsman. it doesnt prove that he is an excellent player of spin (and i firmly believe that we'll only find that out after he tours india), nor does it prove that he is capable against pace, because he could be worked out in just the next series.

I think the point your making seems to say that a great performance against Australian bowlers should not be credited.

nor does it prove that he is capable against pace

The Australian pace attack is poor? Scoring centuries against them only highlights capability?

it doesnt prove that he is an excellent player of spin

I'm not saying he is but you cannot deny that he played Warne well consitently throughout the series? He may have failed to the odd good ball but even the greats like Tendaulkar get out to a good ball (not that I am suggesting Pietersen is of that class).

 

[open365]

KP may not have played 50 test matches,but he's shown in what time he's been playing international cricket that he is a special player and will be around for a long time.

3 hundreds in his first ODI series including the fastest hundred by an Englishman(well sort of) and a fantatic ashes series. He is not going to forget how to bat and end up averaging 40 over 30 tests.

end off.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I agree with TEC, in that Pietersen can't be called an excellent player of spin based on one series when he faced just one spinner, albeit a superb spinner. Take a player like Lara - he's considered by many to be the greatest player of spin, but that's not due to one series. That's due to him consistently belting the likes of Murali, Warne and all other posers.

To use another West Indian example, Sarwan had a very good series in Sri Lanka a few years back, but I still consider him a competent/good player of spin, seeing as he hasn't managed to back that up consistently against quality spin.

You can't say a player has arrived if he has only played one series. Yes, Pietersen showed excellent capability in the Ashes and played a good series, but considering that there are more teams in the world than simply Australia, he's not even faced half the challenge yet.

 

[tooextracool]

I think the point your making seems to say that a great performance against Australian bowlers should not be credited.

no, my point is that one good series against australia does not make him proven.

The Australian pace attack is poor? Scoring centuries against them only highlights capability?

firstly he only scored 1 century, and that involved 3 dropped catches. so its safe to say that he didnt exactly dominate the aussie bowling attack as you seem to be indicating.

I'm not saying he is but you cannot deny that he played Warne well consitently throughout the series? He may have failed to the odd good ball but even the greats like Tendaulkar get out to a good ball (not that I am suggesting Pietersen is of that class).

oh he played him pretty well yes, but one must remember that a true test of a player against spin is in the subcontinent, on slow turners against spin from both ends. while i dont expect pietersen to struggle against spin, hes still far from being completely proven against it, in much the same way that strauss and flintoff are.

 

[open365]

^i believe Pietersen has the confidence and work ethic to suceed against any type of bowling.

He didn't get bogged down by Shane Warne and he's not going to get stuck against Kaneria.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

KP may not have played 50 test matches,but he's shown in what time he's been playing international cricket that he is a special player and will be around for a long time.

3 hundreds in his first ODI series including the fastest hundred by an Englishman(well sort of) and a fantatic ashes series. He is not going to forget how to bat and end up averaging 40 over 30 tests.

end off.

Like Jimmy Adams forgot how to bat?

First 12 Tests: 1132 runs @ 87.00 - only Bradman was better through 12 Tests.
Test Average: 41.26

Moral? Don't count your monkeys before they hatch.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Stop typecasting the mentality of CW based on the mentality of one or two people.

One or two?!?

I remember all the people who insisted Laxman was better than KP just because he'd played more Tests and was proven to average less than someone like Trescothick whilst also batting on better batting pitches.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

One or two?!?

I remember all the people who insisted Laxman was better than KP just because he'd played more Tests and was proven to average less than someone like Trescothick whilst also batting on better batting pitches.

So you think that Pietersen is better than Laxman after 5 Tests? Considering that he's only faced 2 quality bowlers.

*stirs*