***Official*** Pakistan in Australia 2023/24

[Qlder]

How lucky was Australia. Way down on the over rate but bowled Pak out in 77.1 overs so no penalty applies

(no penalty if bowled out in <80 overs)

 

[Gob]

Didn't watch the last half an hour

How bad/ average was Cummins's captaincy?

 

[honestbharani]

How lucky was Australia. Way down on the over rate but bowled Pak out in 77.1 overs so no penalty applies

(no penalty if bowled out in <80 overs)

Think it's a match basis and not an innings. So if Pak bat a 100 overs next dig it may still apply.

 

[Spark]

Didn't watch the last half an hour

How bad/ average was Cummins's captaincy?

They persisted with the short ball stuff a little too long but frankly it wasn't like anything else was looking threatening either.

 

[Qlder]

Think it's a match basis and not an innings. So if Pak bat a 100 overs next dig it may still apply.

No, it's a per innings basis. But if Pak bat a 100 overs next dig and Aus behind overs then yes it will of course apply for that innings as >80 overs

The 1st innings will never count now though as was <80 overs

Aus pretty lucky all series as Pak only batted once more than 80 overs

 

[quincywagstaff]

Didn't watch the last half an hour

How bad/ average was Cummins's captaincy?

Probably should've brought on Head instead of Labuschagne first.

 

[Molehill]

No, it's a per innings basis. But if Pak bat a 100 overs next dig and Aus behind overs then yes it will of course apply for that innings as >80 overs

The 1st innings will never count now though as was <80 overs

Aus pretty lucky all series as Pak only batted once more than 80 overs

The 80 overs thing is weird. You're either bowling slowly or you're not, what does bowling a team out in under 80 overs have to do with it?

 

[Qlder]

The 80 overs thing is weird. You're either bowling slowly or you're not, what does bowling a team out in under 80 overs have to do with it?

It used to be no penalty if bowled out in <60 overs but changed during the Ashes fiasco where Eng Lost 19 points and Aus 10 points even though games had results. Main point was if there's a result what does it matter.

So <80 sort of makes more sense as with 10 wkts falling they could count that as a slow day (so 4 day test and no result impact). Makes more sense than previous <60 overs

 

[Molehill]

It used to be no penalty if bowled out in <60 overs but changed during the Ashes fiasco where Eng Lost 19 points and Aus 10 points even though games had results. Main point was if there's a result what does it matter.

So <80 sort of makes more sense as with 10 wkts falling they could count that as a slow day (so 4 day test and no result impact). Makes more sense than previous <60 overs

Has the rule changed since the Ashes? Have Eng/Aus copped fines that are no longer applicable? That would be even more farcical.

To my mind, if there's a result, then over rates should be ignored. The only Test in the Ashes which should've come under consideration was the rain affected draw.

 

[Qlder]

Has the rule changed since the Ashes? Have Eng/Aus copped fines that are no longer applicable? That would be even more farcical.

The new rules were back dated to start of Ashes/WTC, but penalties still applied as >80 overs were bowled. From memory it stopped further huge points in 3rd Test being applied as both teams were looking at a series with negative points

 

[Kirkut]

This Aussie attack without Cummins is so circumspect. Starc looks oddly innocuous while he was superb in England, Haze looks good in patches.

 

[honestbharani]

Hmmmm.. so basically cricket rules were tweaked to ensure England and Australia were not penalized. So new!!!

 

[Molehill]

Hmmmm.. so basically cricket rules were tweaked to ensure England and Australia were not penalized. So new!!!

The rules favour countries who bowl more spin overs......so Hmmmm backatcha!!

 

[honestbharani]

The rules favour countries who bowl more spin overs......so Hmmmm backatcha!!

 

[honestbharani]

This Danyal must be one of those guys who applauded Waqar when he uttered that idiotic comment about Rizwan doing the sajdeh in that T20 WC. This article is amazing levels of crap that even Firdoose Moonda would struggle to hit IMO.

Rizwan atones for his mistake in Melbourne

After falling while trying to get out of the line of a short ball at the MCG, Rizwan went after the Australian bowlers in Sydney

www.espncricinfo.com

But for a man of faith like Rizwan, getting out of the way must be as close as sport comes to sacrilege.

Rizwan went off for lunch, but his appetite was nowhere near sated yet. This time, he was facing Cummins himself, the man who had caused him to sin last week, snapping his side out of the heavenly dreams of victory and casting them back into this mortal realm.

Like a faithful disciple, he followed Rizwan in planting the front foot and sweeping Lyon,

 

[Pup Clarke]

Leaving out Rizwan for the 1st Test and going with Sarfraz is one of the dumbest selection mishaps in a long time imo. Form notwithstanding, Rizwan is just ideally suited to these conditions and has the technique and strokeplay to put the pressure back on the bowlers. Ideal mentality too as he's naturally a counter-attacking player and is fantastic at putting the bad ball away

Plays pace well and comfortable on the back foot. Quality cricketer

 

[Gob]

I like how acrobatic and energetic Riz is when batting. Just so much energy with the way he moves goes by his business and the way he imposes himself . One can only imagine how energetic he is while making love. Must be some sight

 

[Prince EWS]

I think this is kind of why Jamal was hyped as an all-rounder, he's worked with the tail brilliantly, almost akin to a real bat.

Can't believe he batted below Sajid.

 

[Prince EWS]

Opening with Sajid Khan

1 Sajid

 

[TheJediBrah]

Has the rule changed since the Ashes? Have Eng/Aus copped fines that are no longer applicable? That would be even more farcical.

To my mind, if there's a result, then over rates should be ignored. The only Test in the Ashes which should've come under consideration was the rain affected draw.

The existence of the "fines" in the first place is already max-farcical