***Official*** Pakistan and England in UAE

[Furball]

two years ago when Eng offered hosting Pak's test matches in england, I wouldnt be surprised this idea must have came to their mind considering the huge numbers of indian and Pakistanis living in UK.

It would have been a lot of fun, result would have been if not 3-0 but at least 2-0 for Pak, but thanks to the greedy, money hungry, filthy ****roaches like 3 of us have single handedly made sure that it will never happen.

The problem with getting England to host Pakistan's "home" Tests again is Ijaz Butt ****ting all over the ECB's doorstep when the spot-fixing scandal broke.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Zaheer Khan and Praveen kumar would have eaten our 2010 batting line up for breakfast in England. If there is a series between the two sides right now I think it will be 1-1. Indian greats are still pretty good in their home conditions however i don't see India getting a way past Younis and Misbah with their bowling attack.

This line up would fend them off without to much trouble.

Khan was poor in England the man didn't get fit for it so he can be ruled out of actually playing in the serie on the basis that he's a lazy f***.

Kumar's wickets in the England series had more to do with the helpfulness of the conditions than anything else, he was the only bowler really bowling consistently which meant he was the one most likely to take wickets.

That said we haven't seen enough of Pakistan's seamers this series to really judge them.

 

[Black_Warrior]

This line up would fend them off without to much trouble.

Khan was poor in England the man didn't get fit for it so he can be ruled out of actually playing in the serie on the basis that he's a lazy f***.

Kumar's wickets in the England series had more to do with the helpfulness of the conditions than anything else, he was the only bowler really bowling consistently which meant he was the one most likely to take wickets.

That said we haven't seen enough of Pakistan's seamers this series to really judge them.

I always felt Pravin Kumar would find English conditions extremely useful and he did.. So if he finds English conditions helpful, I am not sure the Pakistani batting line up which is notorious for not being able to handle the moving ball would be able to deal with him? Even Wavell Hinds can prove to be dangerous when it comes Pakistan playing the moving ball
2nd SF: Pakistan v West Indies at Southampton, Sep 22, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[r3alist]

The poll is all level!!

I wouldn't want a road in the second test, that would suit England a lot more than us, their batting is very deep and they could punish our bowlers.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Its hilarious when someone called biased indian votes for Pakistan in a poll

 

[flibbertyjibber]

england need to play 2 spinners tremlett didn't look fit.

Wouldn't disagree, looking at how he bowled it beggars belief the management let him play to start with.

 

[Viscount Tom]

I;d have gone for Finn tbh. If your going to have the 3rd seamer you pick the one who is fit.

 

[slowfinger]

30 England fans v about 12 Pakistan fans and 17 anons tbh.

 

[CWB304]

I;d have gone for Finn tbh. If your going to have the 3rd seamer you pick the one who is fit.

Tremlett should not have played in Dubai but in the end it made no difference to the result. Similarly the question of whether Monty or Finn plays the next match - I favour Finn but would have no objections to Monty - is a toss up as both bring something extra to the table. England's problems are in the batting; it will be very difficult for them to hit back because they're carrying two passengers on the batting side.

Ian Bell as ever proved that, against a top class attack, he's a walking wicket. It really makes me laugh when people so much as mention Bell when speaking of the best batsmen in the game, as if feasting on poor quality attacks like the Indian attack over the English summer makes him all of a sudden a top batsman. He has with one or two exceptions, ALWAYS failed against well rounded attacks which put pressure on a batsman to score and threaten wickets with both seam and spin bowling options, and this Pakistan attack is one such. Playing him against this Pakistan attack is like coming into the game a man down.

Bell is NOT a good player of top class seam bowling and lamentably inept against really good spin, as his travails against Warne, Ajmal and every decent spinner he's ever faced prove. He looks to play shots he is not good enough to play against the seamers and he is too tentative against the spinners because he never seems to be able to pick their variations with confidence. That some were touting him as "England's best player of spin bowling" just goes to show how clueless some people are about this game. Bell will not aggregate 150 runs for this series; in fact I'll eat my hat if he gets a single fifty.

As for the other passenger, what can I say except that the long slow decline of Kevin Pietersen continues? The way he got out in his two knocks in the last test encapsulate where he is as a batsman just now: mentally clueless as to how to go about scoring runs against decent bowling attacks. It looked like every single ball he faced was likely to get him out. The lbw in the first innings summed up the general air of insecurity and even panic he evinces against accurate slow bowling these days, whilst the hoick to midwicket in the second dig was just another way of saying "I know I'm not good enough to tough this one out, so I'll throw my wicket away and pretend the problem is carelessness". It's not. That he has made three big doubles against weak attacks in recent times tells us that he is as capable as any Indian flat track bully of filling his boots when the going is easy.

Those innings also seem to have obscured the fact that for the rest of the time he's looked the same confused and flawed player that he has been for the past three or four years. What happened with the doubles was that he saw Cook, whom he only grudgingly rates, and Bell, whom he (correctly) rates not all, compiling daddy hundreds and more against lame attacks and thought, "f*ck, these guys, who are not even in my league, are not only being compared to me, but they're being talked of as being better than me!" So he knuckled down and followed his teammates by playing those boring average-boosting innings which have made such a nonsense of Test batting averages in recent times.

Bell is a poster boy for this sort of nonsense, but there are others like Jayawardene, Samaraweera and Hussey. The latter three, like Cook, are actually decent players, and would have comfortably averaged in the mid-forties had their Test careers begun a decade or fifteen years before they did. Bell OTOH would have struggled to get his average into the forties.

KP has not fulfilled his promise because he did not knuckle down and tighten up his technique in the areas he needed to tighten up after his first flush of success post-2005 Ashes. Now he's too old to adapt, and just looks awkward when he tries. Look at Sangakkara. That is what applying intellect and hard work to solving technical issues in batting can bring you. The Sangakkara of ten years ago who averaged in the low forties as a wicketkeeper-batsman and the Sangakkara of today who is the best batsman in the world are completely different players. Everything is tighter and more compact; gone are all the loose offside "dasher" shots. What "flair" there is comes from the correctness of the strokes, from form serving function. Even the signature one-kneed cover drive is not a flair shot, but rather a function of getting the front foot in the right place and sequenced weight transfer through the shot. Because his batting has evolved in this way his pyjama cricket game has suffered, but who really cares? The Sangakkara's of this world won't be judged by the mindless bish bosh of meaningless ODIs such as the current series between SL and the rainbow chokers.

The two best England batsmen are Trott and Prior; they should bat three (Trott) and five (Prior) with Pietersen between them and Bell dropped. I say reprieve Pietersen because there is always an outside chance that he is able somehow to survive until he gets to thirty or so and then gains confidence from remembering that he has made big centuries against even better attacks than this one. But Trott or whoever else is set when he gets in must do their best to shield him from Ajmal and Gul until he looks comfortable. Bopara should come in at seven to shepherd the tail with Broad coming in at eight and Swann and Anderson and Finn to follow. It probably won't be enough to save the series but who knows.

 

[Eds]

Lol @ dropping Bell for Bopara.

 

[CWB304]

Lol @ dropping Bell for Bopara.

LOL all you like, but the fact that I'm suggesting this even though I don't even consider Bopara a Test class batsman goes to show how lamentably poor Bell is against top class bowling. Be honest. If England are 35-3 and you see Bell is coming out to bat against Gul and Ajmal, what is the over-under on his score? I'd be honest if anyone said more than 15.

It's not so much a question of dropping Bell for Bopara, but of dropping him for IMO a better bat in Prior in the same position (5). Bopara comes in because demoting someone like Bell who has become established as a "senior player" in recent times to 7 would be bad for team morale and the player's confidence. Just drop him and tell him it's a case of horses for courses. If the change doesn't work out, he'll be back for sure: look what happened with Samaraweera.

 

[sledger]

Well, this conveniently ignores the fact that Ian Bell has been one of England's leading performers for more than a year now.

 

[CWB304]

Well, this conveniently ignores the fact that Ian Bell has been one of England's leading performers for more than a year now.

Clearly you have some basic problems with reading comprehension. I am aware of and acknowledged Bell's recent record but pointed out that those runs have been made against weak attacks. Whenever he has faced strong and well balanced attacks with potent seam AND spin threats like this Pakistan attack Bell has failed. The sequence continues.

 

[Jarquis]

Been the best batsman in the world for just over a year tbh

 

[Furball]

Also completely ignores Bell's innings in South Africa.

He's averaged close to 80 since the start of that SA series and averaged 100 last year. One bad match and we're calling for his head - I'm not sure the English language has a word to describe how stupid that is.

 

[sledger]

Clearly you have some basic problems with reading comprehension. I am aware of acknowledged Bell's recent record but pointed out that those runs have been made against weak attacks. Whenever he has faced strong and well balanced attacks with potent seam AND spin threats like this Pakistan attack Bell has failed. The sequence continues.

Weak attacks or not, a huge amount of those runs have come in big games and in big series. To suggest he ought to be sacked after two poor innings, and replace him with a player who has done nothing at all to demonstrate he is of requisite ability to play at this level is questionable.

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't question my reading and comprehensive abilities in future, if you would be so kind.

 

[Prince EWS]

I like this guy, even though I completely disagree with pretty much everything he's said so far.

Welcome to the forum, dude.

 

[CWB304]

Been the best batsman in the world for just over a year tbh

If you think Bell has been the best batsman in the world, or even one of the best batsmen in the world, over the past year or at any stage of his career then you know little or nothing about cricket. He never makes runs when conditions are difficult or against strong well balanced attacks with potent seam and spin threats. Just because he has some ridiculous average over the past year, do you think it is because he is all of a sudden 2.5 times better as a batsman than he was before? Is the likelier explanation not that he has filled his boots against weak bowling, and will once again revert to mean as soon as he faces a strong attack?

Compare Bell with the likes of Sanga - who has averaged 70+ over the past 6-7 YEARS, and one begins to perceive how ludicrous it is to adjudge a Johnny Come Lately like Bell the best or anything like that on the strength of 12 months' form.

Let us see what happens in the rest of the series. If he continues to suck, will you say, "hard luck, he was due a bad series"? IMO that would be wrong. Because if that were to happen, as I am absolutely certain it is having watched most of Bell's innings since he made his debut in 2005, it would indicate that he has merely performed "as expected" against a well balanced attack. The implication would be that if England wishes to emulate the culture of continuous self-improvement that characterized the ruthless West Indian teams of the 80s and the Australians under Steve Waugh, they should find a replacement who can not only rack up daddy hundreds against Ishant Sharma and co but survive two sessions against decent quality Test attacks.

 

[CWB304]

Weak attacks or not, a huge amount of those runs have come in big games and in big series. To suggest he ought to be sacked after two poor innings, and replace him with a player who has done nothing at all to demonstrate he is of requisite ability to play at this level is questionable.

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't question my reading and comprehensive abilities in future, if you would be so kind.

You wrote that I had "conveniently ignored" a factor that I had in fact fully acknowledged in the post you were alluding to. Questioning your reading comprehension under those circumstances was IMO a more than reasonable thing to do.

 

[Jarquis]

zzzzzzz

Who's been better than bell in the last 12 months then?