***Official*** Pakistan in England

[FRAZ]

To be very very honest with you as I have played under 15 and under 19 (Mozang Gymkhana Lahore:same where Mohammad Hussain came out) myself and I dunno why there is no proper ledger made any where for this thing but any ways , Action does play a very very very vital role in order to be picked up . Smooth and easy actions (some times ) are preffered because the main thing that the selectors see is that which part of the body his force is focussing on . One good bowler has to use the wrist just a little bit and basically the bowlers who know the art of using the different dimensions and muscles of the arm most of the times become very very good seem bowlers. Because one needs differet steering dimensions to be given to the ball to bowl any sort of a ball. And also the Muscles around the neck play a very very vital role (especially when one has to bowl the short pitch stuff).
I said about Plunk's action because it sure is of CLASS and its just a natural one and not a fake one (i.e. Shabbir , Gul) etc .

 

[marc71178]

How is tremlett doing by and chance?

I noticed he's back playing for Hampshire - only 4 matches so far, but 15 @ 25.53.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Monty will rarely get to bowl on the 5th day of a Test on pitches that spin so much as the last one. He's unlikely to see anything so helpful in an Ashes series. When he does get some assistance in Asia you'll then say 'oh well he's up against the best players of spin' when he does sweet FA (again). He's very unlikely to see anything so helpful again in England (although given the generosity of English groundsmen towards tourists you never know). Taking two wickets off 54 overs on what will likely be the best pitch for him he'll get to bowl on for over a year just doesn't cut it. Especially when you're rubbish at batting and fielding.

There are at least two pitches in Australia which traditionally turn comfortably more than that Lords pitch on the fifth day, in Adelaide and Sydney. They won't necessarily do so in the Ashes, but it'd be foolish to bet against it. The WACA had a fair amount of turn last year too, so that could be three.

And it was certainly no more helpful than many pitches I've seen in England before. You do remember that 50 odd wickets fell to spinners last Ashes, right? And the season before, Giles took 15-20 wickets in two tests?

 

[wpdavid]

while it maybe argued that England could have done without Hoggard at Edgbaston, who would you have dropped at Trent bridge? One would think that the worst bowler in the game was Flintoff, and theres no way you would have dropped him.
Everytime i look at that Edgbaston scorecard, i marvel at how stupid it was for Vaughan to give Simon Jones only 5 overs in the 2nd inning. Nearly cost England the game.

Oh, absolutely. Whilst I'm generally a big fan of Vaughan's captaincy, that was a howler of the worst order, and it was pretty obvious at the time given how dire much of the bowling was on Sunday morning. To answer your question, the obvious one is Harmison, who was thoroughly ineffective in both games. Now obviously that wouldn't have happened immediately after Lord's, and I wouldn't have been brave enough to drop him at Trent Bridge, but I was just suggesting that his absence for a batsman wouldn't have weakened the side at all. 100% hindsight, of course, as I said previously. That being said, I'd forgetten about Jones' injury that only allowed him to bowl 4 overs in the second innings at Trent Bridge, so, in those circustances, Harmison's value went beyond removing Tait & Kasper and, IIRC, getting a highly dubious lbw decision against Katich. Looking ahead, if Jones ever does play again, it would be a brave move to play him as one of only 4 bowlers, tbh.

Given the options of Plunkett and Mahmood who offer nothing with ball, bat or in the field, i propose that the best option would be to go in with 4 bowlers and strengthen the batting. so that we at least bat till number 7, as opposed to batting down till number 6 as we have been recently.

Me too, but I just wondered whether Marc saw it that way or still preferred a 5 man attack.

 

[Goughy]

I said about Plunk's action because it sure is of CLASS and its just a natural one and not a fake one (i.e. Shabbir , Gul) etc .

Strange you say that, as it is generally considered a very mechanical and taught action. The action seems to be built from taking computer data on actions and applying the conclusions in the simplist physical form.

Plunketts action is simple and based on straight lines but I always feel he looks kind of robotic and awkward and fails to get the most out of it

 

[Goughy]

Plunkett - Panesar - Plunkett - Paneser etc

Firstly I wish to state the obvious. Both these 2 players are not of the standard required by England to pursue the no.2 World ranking.

Plunkett is young and can get away movement BUT he only bowls standard med-fast, he is inconsistent, he has never really succeeded at FC level.
There is nothing about him that suggests he will succeed at test level.

Panesar is an ok bowler that is capable of doing a job. However, he has technical issues, doesnt spin the ball a great deal and the rest of his game is a joke.

Both of these players should be learning their craft in the CC and 'A' team games rather than being full international cricketers.

As for development, if I could only choose 1 to develop I would choose Panesar. Not because I think he is better than Plunkett but because England have greater depth of seamers and a decent spinner cannot be wasted.

 

[FRAZ]

Strange you say that, as it is generally considered a very mechanical and taught action. The action seems to be built from taking computer data on actions and applying the conclusions in the simplist physical form.

Plunketts action is simple and based on straight lines but I always feel he looks kind of robotic and awkward and fails to get the most out of it

Doesn't matter if it is the computer genereted one . Computer sure did a good job . I do not see the gentleman stressing pressure on the lower back .I do not see him banging on the pitch like this superman Zaheer Khan does (as I mentioned here or some where else before and soon after like a few months I heard Sarfraz Nawaz saying the same thing) . I do not see him stretching the arm in a very wide and an insane angle way e.g. (Malinga ,Naved) etc . He sure is a skid bowler ( simple bowler) . I wont mind computer teaching me the right thing if it is a right thing in the first place..

 

[Clarence]

He is still "stressing pressure on the lower back" as all bowlers do and always will just without the awkard twisting which can enhance the likelihood of back troubles. Fast bowlers will always have back injuries, no matter what their action. Research suggests that strength and work load have just as much to do with it as action.

 

[Scaly piscine]

There are at least two pitches in Australia which traditionally turn comfortably more than that Lords pitch on the fifth day, in Adelaide and Sydney. They won't necessarily do so in the Ashes, but it'd be foolish to bet against it. The WACA had a fair amount of turn last year too, so that could be three.

And it was certainly no more helpful than many pitches I've seen in England before. You do remember that 50 odd wickets fell to spinners last Ashes, right? And the season before, Giles took 15-20 wickets in two tests?

Against West Indies who were absolutely abject against spin. Most of those wickets in the Ashes were from Warne - it was nothing to do with the pitches spinning particularly (although one of them did and Giles was rubbish on it as usual - still didn't spin as much as in the last game).

 

[Scaly piscine]

Firstly I wish to state the obvious. Both these 2 players are not of the standard required by England to pursue the no.2 World ranking.

Plunkett is young and can get away movement BUT he only bowls standard med-fast, he is inconsistent, he has never really succeeded at FC level.
There is nothing about him that suggests he will succeed at test level.

Panesar is an ok bowler that is capable of doing a job. However, he has technical issues, doesnt spin the ball a great deal and the rest of his game is a joke.

Both of these players should be learning their craft in the CC and 'A' team games rather than being full international cricketers.

As for development, if I could only choose 1 to develop I would choose Panesar. Not because I think he is better than Plunkett but because England have greater depth of seamers and a decent spinner cannot be wasted.

How many bowlers play for England when they're 20? There's huge potential in Plunkett.

He's a finger spinner so as I've already said he's limited. The best he'll do is emulate Vettori and end up with a Test bowling average of 35 but whilst being an atrocious fielder and bad batsman. Not good enough. It's a myth that England *need* a specialist spinner, especially at home. If they find a quality wrist spinner then they will add a lot, but someone like Panesar isn't going to add anything because if a pitch does anything he'll just get outbowled by the opponents and we'll lose, rest of the time he's cannon fodder.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Of the four bowlers used by Pakistan in the tour match vs Northhants, only one (Shahid Nazir) was in the original tour party. Arshad Khan and Jannisar Khan have both been plucked from league cricket - surely Mohammad Sami should be out practising after Lord's? It looks as if Pakistan seem to be only playing this game because they are obliged to, rather than getting some serious practice out of it.

 

[Autobahn]

1) Imran khan on an interview for sky said basically that pakistan domestic cricket was really poor during his time and he had to use his own judgement in selection and along with a comment that david Lloyd made about imran asking him to find a place for wasim akram suggests that Wasim was rushed into the side because imran didn't believe pak domestic cricket would help at all.

2) You can easily tell plunkett's action isn't 100% natural just by the fact he constantly rehearses the wrist position walking back to his mark, i feel he would be better off with a full season or two of county cricket to really lock the action in

3) I would also want panesar during the VB series and the world cup to go to india and maybe sign up for a team (if that's possible) even if just for a few games to really improve his game and get plenty of coaching, maybe at one of those spin camps.

 

[Autobahn]

Of the four bowlers used by Pakistan in the tour match vs Northhants, only one (Shahid Nazir) was in the original tour party. Arshad Khan and Jannisar Khan have both been plucked from league cricket - surely Mohammad Sami should be out practising after Lord's? It looks as if Pakistan seem to be only playing this game because they are obliged to, rather than getting some serious practice out of it.

And funnily enough northants are fielding the first team, kinda odd that everyone complains about counties fielding relativley weak sides and when they do field the first team, pakistan field a much weaker team.

 

[Goughy]

How many bowlers play for England when they're 20? There's huge potential in Plunkett.

Why? He has no great height, he bowles at no geat pace, he isnt particluarly accurate, doesnt possess a great amount of variation and does not get significant consistant movement.

He is not a bad bowler but he is very average and has very limited potential. As for him being slected at 20, that means nothing and I refuse to accept he is one of the top 5-6 bowlers in England or is capable of becoming so.

Also being picked as an Enlgand cricketer at 20 means nothing, just look at how the careers of Ben Hollioake and Mark Lathwell panned out.

Simply, he is capable of doing a decent job but players selected should be capable of more.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Why? He has no great height, he bowles at no geat pace, he isnt particluarly accurate, doesnt possess a great amount of variation and does not get significant consistant movement.

He is not a bad bowler but he is very average and has very limited potential. As for him being slected at 20, that means nothing and I refuse to accept he is one of the top 5-6 bowlers in England or is capable of becoming so.

Also being picked as an Enlgand cricketer at 20 means nothing, just look at how the careers of Ben Hollioake and Mark Lathwell panned out.

Simply, he is capable of doing a decent job but players selected should be capable of more.

Can you even remember what most of this present England team where like when they were 21? Of course he doesn't bowl at great pace or great accuracy he's 21. When he gets it right he gets enough movement to get anyone out.

Your examples of a mentally flawed *batsman* and an all-rounder who died when he was 24 are completely pointless.

The guy easily has as much potential as any young bowler in England along with someone like Stuart Broad (who has a very similar record, wickets at 32 in FC cricket and expensive with it). Also the England management obviously like his attitude so there's another plus with the obvious talent he has, so yes he's capable of becoming the best bowler in England as are a few others.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Plunkett was on the tour to Pakistan and it could be argued that the only player missing then was Simon Jones. He then made the tour to India as well ahead of Anderson who didnt even make the squad initially. Therefore he must have been ahead of Anderson in the pecking order until after the India tour.
And plunkett was in the original squad for the series against Pakistan this summer.



the ability to bowl quick can only ever be a decent commodity when it is supplemented with accuracy and/or variety. Nantie Hayward may have had plenty of pace, but he was clearly never good enough for the international level, same with dilhara fernando and Lasith Malinga. Arguably all these bowlers were much faster than Plunkett too who can only claim to be fast medium.
Ideally Anderson or maybe even Jones will be playing in the Ashes this winter. If not, id much rather see someone else who isnt Lewis, Mahmood or Plunkett in the side. How is tremlett doing by and chance?

Not in the original squad tho, as Tremlett actually was. He was called up to replace Jones.

From the Beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4325768.stm

 

[marc71178]

Me too, but I just wondered whether Marc saw it that way or still preferred a 5 man attack.

Ideally a 5 man attack, because it's worked in the past so well (and also to lessen the load on key men)

However to do it, we do need to ensure we have 5 Test class bowlers, which unfortunately we're short of at the moment.

 

[tooextracool]

Right but working straight up in the top level does give an idea to learn how it is done there once I am "fully" capable enough to carry on the stuff there then what should I have to do to keep up the "standard".
Take a very good example of M Zahid (although poor guy had a very bad injury) .

but if someone is incapable of doing the job at a level below, why should he be given a chance to see what a much harder level is like? you work yourself up levels IMO

 

[tooextracool]

To be very very honest with you as I have played under 15 and under 19 (Mozang Gymkhana Lahore:same where Mohammad Hussain came out) myself and I dunno why there is no proper ledger made any where for this thing but any ways , Action does play a very very very vital role in order to be picked up . Smooth and easy actions (some times ) are preffered because the main thing that the selectors see is that which part of the body his force is focussing on . One good bowler has to use the wrist just a little bit and basically the bowlers who know the art of using the different dimensions and muscles of the arm most of the times become very very good seem bowlers. Because one needs differet steering dimensions to be given to the ball to bowl any sort of a ball. And also the Muscles around the neck play a very very vital role (especially when one has to bowl the short pitch stuff).
I said about Plunk's action because it sure is of CLASS and its just a natural one and not a fake one (i.e. Shabbir , Gul) etc .

Plunketts action is by no means perfect. It is largely open chested and as a result makes it very difficult for him to swing the ball. whatever it is, he needs to be able to take wickets with his action in domestic cricket first.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, absolutely. Whilst I'm generally a big fan of Vaughan's captaincy, that was a howler of the worst order, and it was pretty obvious at the time given how dire much of the bowling was on Sunday morning. To answer your question, the obvious one is Harmison, who was thoroughly ineffective in both games. Now obviously that wouldn't have happened immediately after Lord's, and I wouldn't have been brave enough to drop him at Trent Bridge, but I was just suggesting that his absence for a batsman wouldn't have weakened the side at all. 100% hindsight, of course, as I said previously. That being said, I'd forgetten about Jones' injury that only allowed him to bowl 4 overs in the second innings at Trent Bridge, so, in those circustances, Harmison's value went beyond removing Tait & Kasper and, IIRC, getting a highly dubious lbw decision against Katich. Looking ahead, if Jones ever does play again, it would be a brave move to play him as one of only 4 bowlers, tbh.

even with 100% hindsight you would be brave enough to have dropped harmison for both the edgbaston and TB test match? Really, i have to wonder what you are thinking considering that he took the last wicket at Edgbaston as well as the vital wicket of Michael Clarke on the previous evening. At TB he took more wickets than any of the other England bowlers in the 2nd inning. I can only really see an argument for dropping Hoggard on the basis of hindsight for the Edgbaston test considering that he was atrocious all the way until TB.

Me too, but I just wondered whether Marc saw it that way or still preferred a 5 man attack.

i think i would consider a 5 man attack if one of Giles, Read, Jones or Anderson were playing. As it turns out 3 of them are injured while the other seems unable to break a love affair. At the moment though one has to break one has to find the best balance in the side, and it only makes more sense to retain a centurion than a player who took 2 wickets in 2 innings.