***Official*** Pakistan in England

[silentstriker]

and so it just goes to show how you cant base rankings on a short period of time...England couldnt beat Sri lanka, and yet Pakistan have completely folded against England...which would suggest Sri lanka were the better team ...we all know that kind of logic is pointless, because we know teams have to prove their worth over a fairly lengthy period of time, which IMO is about 18 months to 2 years.

Pakistan have done ok in the last 9 months, but it could actually be said that England losing in pakistan was merely a blip in a long line of highly successful series.

A draw in India was huge, but they also drew at home against SL which was a big defeat IMO. So I don't think it was a blip. We'll find out in the Ashes though.

 

[Swervy]

No, Pakistan won because they won the toss and bowled decently for one day and England crumbled (and Pakistan had a chucker who was allowed to take 5-79 in the match without any penalty to Pakistan). Pakistan were only still in the game going to the fifth day because of the advantage of batting first - a load of people will now tell me that EVERY single result is down to the winning team outplaying the losing team, but in reality we all know that's rubbish. Teams get advantages and Pakistan did just enough to make theirs count even tho they weren't the better team over that Test.

But surely the whole point is to score more runs than the other team over two innings no matter what the conditions etc...that is the sole objective of playing test cricket (if your goal is to win of course).

I know Shabbir was a chucker but its not relevent..as per the ruling at the time, he was perfectly legal to bowl.

there are plenty of reasons why England didnt win that test:
First innings losing 8 wickets for 167 runs, which combined with the second innings means they lost 18 wickets for 342 runs, which isnt acceptable for a team with aspirations of winning a test match.
Pakistan were able to knock off the deficit in the second innings within just over a session with only 2 main batsmen down, if you do that too often you are asking for trouble.

So I cant really see your point on Pakistan didnt deserve to win that test....England may have held the advantage for longer in the test, but that doesnt actually mean thay better cricket for longer...and anyway, pakistan did what they had to do.

 

[Nishant]

Why is the ashes a bigger event than the world cup for england and its fans? I dont get it! O.K, i understand that its a great rivalry but there is also one between india and pakistan...but i can say, as an indian fan that i rather india won the WC than a series against pakistan! Surely, winning a huge tournament involving all cricketing nations is a much bigger thing than winning a series against a single nation, be it the ashes or not!

 

[Swervy]

A draw in India was huge, but they also drew at home against SL which was a big defeat IMO. So I don't think it was a blip. We'll find out in the Ashes though.

the draw vs Sri Lanka was disappointing but it doesnt equate to a big defeat, it was merely a series they should have won but didnt despite being the better team most of the series.... I would still consider it a blip considering the acheivements the England team had carried out over the last 3 years.

Why wait til the Ashes, have England not done enough yet to show the world that they are by and large the second most consistatly successful test team over the last few years. even a big Australian win in the Ashes wont really take away from that, simply because they still acheived what only India have acheived this decade and thats beat Australia in a series. Unless someone else can go over to Australia and show that they can beat them in Australia, then Englands record still remains superior to pretty much every team

 

[Jono]

Why is the ashes a bigger event than the world cup for england and its fans? I dont get it! O.K, i understand that its a great rivalry but there is also one between india and pakistan...but i can say, as an indian fan that i rather india won the WC than a series against pakistan! Surely, winning a huge tournament involving all cricketing nations is a much bigger thing than winning a series against a single nation, be it the ashes or not!

Very simply, test cricket > ODI cricket in importance.

Don't get me wrong, I love the World Cup, but as an Indian cricket fan I'd rather see India defeat Australia in a 3-4 test match series than see India win the WC. The reason seeing India beat Pakistan in a test series would not be as good as winning a WC is because 1) Its happened recently, and 2) Ind and Pak play so bloody often.

Mind you, why is this even in this thread?

 

[Nishant]

Very simply, test cricket > ODI cricket in importance.

Don't get me wrong, I love the World Cup, but as an Indian cricket fan I'd rather see India defeat Australia in a 3-4 test match series than see India win the WC. The reason seeing India beat Pakistan in a test series would not be as good as winning a WC is because 1) Its happened recently, and 2) Ind and Pak play so bloody often.

Mind you, why is this even in this thread?

just randomly...was just thinking abt it and didn't think it was worth starting a new thread for this

 

[Swervy]

Why is the ashes a bigger event than the world cup for england and its fans? I dont get it! O.K, i understand that its a great rivalry but there is also one between india and pakistan...but i can say, as an indian fan that i rather india won the WC than a series against pakistan! Surely, winning a huge tournament involving all cricketing nations is a much bigger thing than winning a series against a single nation, be it the ashes or not!

ODI cricket simply doesnt have the same resonance with the British public as a test series does...ODIs are ten a penny, with already too many tournaments.

To beat the best team in the world over a period of 30 days of cricket is surely more of an acheivemt than beating the best in the world over a 100over match in the final???

 

[Scaly piscine]

But surely the whole point is to score more runs than the other team over two innings no matter what the conditions etc...that is the sole objective of playing test cricket (if your goal is to win of course).

I know Shabbir was a chucker but its not relevent..as per the ruling at the time, he was perfectly legal to bowl.

there are plenty of reasons why England didnt win that test:
First innings losing 8 wickets for 167 runs, which combined with the second innings means they lost 18 wickets for 342 runs, which isnt acceptable for a team with aspirations of winning a test match.
Pakistan were able to knock off the deficit in the second innings within just over a session with only 2 main batsmen down, if you do that too often you are asking for trouble.

So I cant really see your point on Pakistan didnt deserve to win that test....England may have held the advantage for longer in the test, but that doesnt actually mean thay better cricket for longer...and anyway, pakistan did what they had to do.

I'm not interested in the reasons why England lost, I'm only commenting on the obvious reality that England played better than Pakistan and lost. It doesn't particularly matter in the end because cricket is played to runs and wickets, not to a panel of judges - but England played the better of the two sides in that Test.

 

[Sanz]

I'm not interested in the reasons why England lost....

...and I am interested in finging sorry excuses for england's loss, I would also like to continue to live in complete denial and also I will never give any opposition any credit for beating England fair and square.

 

[Swervy]

I'm not interested in the reasons why England lost, I'm only commenting on the obvious reality that England played better than Pakistan and lost. It doesn't particularly matter in the end because cricket is played to runs and wickets, not to a panel of judges - but England played the better of the two sides in that Test.

Obvious reality??? I dont know about that

I know it was a game that England should have won, but that doesnt mean a thing really..as far as I am concerned, it was a game pakistan deserved to win, they did what they had to do

 

[Sanz]

Both of us were arguing in favor of England, then came Scaly, and now we end up arguing in favor of Pakistan.

 

[Swervy]

Both of us were arguing in favor of England, then came Scaly, and now we end up arguing in favor of Pakistan.

hahaha...see, I can stick up for an Asian team

 

[Jono]

Just on Scaly's point (I realise he's as usual not giving the opposition credit, but whilst doing so he did bring up something interesting), there is a difference between a team deserving to win but didn't, and a team that should have won but didn't. Or at least in my view.

In cricket in particular, a team that dominates most of a match, but was unable to put in the final nail in the coffin, or gave up a massive advantage and hence lost, should have won considering the situation of the match (maybe a huge 200 run first innings lead, chasing 120 to win on a decent day 5 pitch etc), but that doesn't mean they deserved to. Australia in Kolkata 2001 is a good example, as is England in Multan 2005.

However if a team blatantly lost because of poor umpiring (and let's be fair, its pretty rare for umpiring decisions to be the sole decider of a match), then one could say they deserved to win. That doesn't mean you necessarily dont' credit the opposition for fighting back after the poor decision or two (or three ), but if the losing team can feel hard by, its not foreign for a losing team to have deserved to win. But giving up an advantage isn't in the same boat, and that's all England did at Multan. England should have won, but Pakistan did win.

And without being too "I told you so", I did predict England to bowl Pakistan out on the last day to a couple of mates. We were doing some exam study at my place and I said "I reckon Pakistan will take this one out, Kaneria should do damage." We flicked it on right after Flintoff's wicket. So its not like it was totally out of the question for Pakistan to come back and win, whereas if anyone picked India to beat Australia in Kolkata 2001 after following on, then they're Nostradamus, because that was pretty much out of the question at the time.

 

[Armadillo]

Scaly, you say that biased umpiring can lead to a team losing a game that they deserve to win however if I remember correctly Geraint Jones was plumb first ball for Kaneria's hattrick. Pakistan effectively took 11 wickets that game, they deserved to win the game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Scaly, you say that biased umpiring can lead to a team losing a game that they deserve to win however if I remember correctly Geraint Jones was plumb first ball for Kaneria's hattrick. Pakistan effectively took 11 wickets that game, they deserved to win the game.

I'm sure there were decisions that went the other way, I didn't say anything about umpiring affecting the game in question anyway. The main factor was simply the toss, on a good pitch which wears a bit batting first is as good as a 100+ run advantage over the course of the game, I'm sure there's some average innings scores somewhere that'll give a better idea. If the two teams are reasonably close this advantage can make all the difference.

 

[Armadillo]

Well well well, Asif and Rana are back. Seems a bit out of the blue, one minute they were ruled out and the next they're fit for the fourth test.

 

[stumpski]

Well well well, Asif and Rana are back. Seems a bit out of the blue, one minute they were ruled out and the next they're fit for the fourth test.

Has that just been announced? I can't find anything about it. But it seems that Shoaib Akhtar won't be risked.

I don't understand why, with nine free days between Tests, Pakistan didn't have a proper three-day game against a county or even a combined side. Australia did the same last year, playing some rubbish two day match against Essex in which each side batted once.

 

[Armadillo]

Its on the front page of CW mate.

 

[stumpski]

So it is ... I go 'straight to forum.' Scoop, eh?

 

[James]

So it is ... I go 'straight to forum.' Scoop, eh?

You go straight to the forum, you're not meant to do that