Pakistan's chances in England this summer

[tooextracool]

So why then do not all bowlers bowl outside off all the time?
Wide balls are there to be hit.
You'll edge one eventually, but probably only after scoring about 170 runs.

no bowler is going to bowl wide outside the off stump forever, because its glaringly obvious that hes not going to get any wickets that way. when playing for a draw we've seen it happen plenty of times though- chris lewis against India in 96 for example.
further when runs are coming easily at the other end, there was no need to go after shabbir during that game. bowling wide outside the off stump is about as negative as a spin bowler bowling outside leg stump.

 

[Richard]

no bowler is going to bowl wide outside the off stump forever, because its glaringly obvious that hes not going to get any wickets that way.

You've just said that playing at balls out there will get you out.
You can't have it both ways.
As far as I'm concerned, someone bowling outside off all the time is likely to be caned to all parts of the cover boundary without much of a break.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's not - as you yourself have said, only very, very rarely does someone who's not been successful at the domestic level end-up being successful at the international.
No, I've not watched any of his First-Class cricket, but I think it likely that if he'd bowled that well he'd have a pretty good average, at least.

FC cricket is not the be all and end all. when one considers his FC record, one must consider the pitches on which hes bowled as well as the number of games hes played. looking at his record hes had 2 good seasons and one poor one, and he hasnt bowled much in any of those seasons. thats hardly anything conclusive.

 

[Richard]

No, it's not, and as such I've not said it is.
It'll be interesting to see how his First-Class and Test bowling goes in the next couple of years or so.

 

[tooextracool]

You've just said that playing at balls out there will get you out.
You can't have it both ways.
As far as I'm concerned, someone bowling outside off all the time is likely to be caned to all parts of the cover boundary without much of a break.

except that any half decent test batsman is not going to play at wide balls unless he really has to. in shabbirs case no one had too, because runs were coming easily at the other end and getting 1-2 runs an over off shabbir was more than good enough.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's not, and as such I've not said it is.
It'll be interesting to see how his First-Class and Test bowling goes in the next couple of years or so.

i dont see why anyone should dismiss his test match performances simply because his FC record doesnt look very good.

 

[Richard]

except that any half decent test batsman is not going to play at wide balls unless he really has to. in shabbirs case no one had too, because runs were coming easily at the other end and getting 1-2 runs an over off shabbir was more than good enough.

It was - in this case.
If 3 or 4 bowlers are bowling outside off all day, the chances are most or all of them are going to get royally caned to the cover boundary. Even if you put 8 men on the off-side. Yes, you'll also get a few wickets, but similarly you'll get the odd leg-side catch if you bowl at batsmen's pads all the time.
Batsmen generally play at wide balls if they think they can get runs - which rather a lot of batsmen in the current era do.
Only rarely is a bowler spared at the current time unless he's bowling accurately. Shabbir's bowling that Test mightn't have been the greatest but it's sure better than anything Rana Naved-Ul-Hasan's ever managed.

 

[Richard]

i dont see why anyone should dismiss his test match performances simply because his FC record doesnt look very good.

When did I do so?
He has indeed bowled well, but I wonder how long it will continue, as we've seen bowlers come in and bowl well for a few Tests in a row.
And, as I say, I find that Patel has been far more impressive - and he's a bit quicker, too.

 

[tooextracool]

It was - in this case.
If 3 or 4 bowlers are bowling outside off all day, the chances are most or all of them are going to get royally caned to the cover boundary. Even if you put 8 men on the off-side. Yes, you'll also get a few wickets, but similarly you'll get the odd leg-side catch if you bowl at batsmen's pads all the time.
Batsmen generally play at wide balls if they think they can get runs - which rather a lot of batsmen in the current era do.
Only rarely is a bowler spared at the current time unless he's bowling accurately. Shabbir's bowling that Test mightn't have been the greatest but it's sure better than anything Rana Naved-Ul-Hasan's ever managed.

i honestly have no idea what you go on about sometimes. shabbir bowled some of the biggest tripe i've ever seen from him in that test match, and didnt deserve a single wicket he got. as far as naved is concerned, ive seen him bowl far far better than that, and his 3/30 and 2/63 were quite remarkable spells of bowling especially the ball that got vaughan bowled in that test match.

 

[tooextracool]

When did I do so?
He has indeed bowled well, but I wonder how long it will continue, as we've seen bowlers come in and bowl well for a few Tests in a row.
And, as I say, I find that Patel has been far more impressive - and he's a bit quicker, too.

Patel is quite a find yes, but hes raw and doesnt have much else in his armoury other than his ability with the old ball. he maybe the fastest indian bowler perhaps ever, and he does have plenty of potential, but i still think sree santh is more likely to succeed than patel.

 

[tooextracool]

When did I do so?
He has indeed bowled well, but I wonder how long it will continue, as we've seen bowlers come in and bowl well for a few Tests in a row.

yet not long ago you said this in the same thread:
"I'd say it is when you bowl the pile of rubbish Sreesanth did."

 

[Richard]

i honestly have no idea what you go on about sometimes. shabbir bowled some of the biggest tripe i've ever seen from him in that test match, and didnt deserve a single wicket he got. as far as naved is concerned, ive seen him bowl far far better than that, and his 3/30 and 2/63 were quite remarkable spells of bowling especially the ball that got vaughan bowled in that test match.

Give Rana a medal for bowling well in a single Test - in his other 7 he averages 76.
The Vaughan ball, as well as being a good one, said something about Vaughan's current inability to get properly onto straight balls.
I'd say Shabbir, while bowling a fair share of rubbish, still bowled at least 2 good balls that Test.

 

[Richard]

Patel is quite a find yes, but hes raw and doesnt have much else in his armoury other than his ability with the old ball. he maybe the fastest indian bowler perhaps ever, and he does have plenty of potential, but i still think sree santh is more likely to succeed than patel.

I have to doubt whether he is currently faster than Srinath was in 1995, 1996 sort of time. Srinath was still bowling at 90mph in 1999, when he was timed for the first time, and that was at 30. And of course we'll never know how fast Kapil was.
I'd say Patel and Sreesanth are about equal in ability with old and new ball (hopefully India might actually play with some balls that swing for more than about 7 or 8 overs when new), Patel is probably a bit more accurate and certainly 10kph or so quicker.
I fail to see how you can suggest that Patel has nothing to offer with the new-ball as he clearly moved it every bit as much as Pathan.

 

[Richard]

yet not long ago you said this in the same thread:
"I'd say it is when you bowl the pile of rubbish Sreesanth did."

I do consider that Sreesanth bowled pretty much a pile of rubbish in the First Test, certainly nowhere near as well as his figures suggested.
But in the Third he's been pretty damn good.

 

[IndianByHeart]

No, I'm not talking about the Pak attack that "destroyed" Eng, because Pak's attack didn't destroy Eng - Eng self-destructed.
If you look carefully I said Pak have the makings of a very, very good attack, that would cause huge problems to anyone.
I did not say they have one now.

And if you look closely i initially said this "The way England has been batting lately, their fans should be worried about England's performance against any attack."

And after a dozen post you have come to admit that Eng were le down due to self destruction. Nice job

Because he's still got scope for big improvement...?

everyone has, he's no different and that doesn't make him all that dangerous.

What I meant was that Shabbir could do to learn a little mentally from Sarfraz who has always been an extremely tough character.
If Sarfraz can do some technical and mental work with him I'm very confident Shabbir will come back a World-beater.

Sarfraz is known to make people corrupt, thats why he's usually kept away from coaching youngster. To expect Sarfraz to rectify a life long chucker's action and also turn him into a mentally tough chap is just asking for miracles.

 

[tooextracool]

Give Rana a medal for bowling well in a single Test - in his other 7 he averages 76.

err you just said that shabbir bowled better than naved has ever managed. whether or not it was for that one test or not, the fact is that naved bowled better than him, and honestly if he were to sort out his accuracy, hed be able to do that with greater consistency.

The Vaughan ball, as well as being a good one, said something about Vaughan's current inability to get properly onto straight balls..

except that it wasnt a straight ball but an inswinging yorker.

I'd say Shabbir, while bowling a fair share of rubbish, still bowled at least 2 good balls that Test.

as did naved for that matter. and to be honest with you i cant even remember shabbir bowling 2 good balls in that test match.

 

[tooextracool]

I do consider that Sreesanth bowled pretty much a pile of rubbish in the First Test, certainly nowhere near as well as his figures suggested.
But in the Third he's been pretty damn good.

he bowled quite brilliantly in the first test too on what was a very flat pitch, for anyone who was actually watching at least. cause all sorts of problems for Pietersen.

 

[tooextracool]

I have to doubt whether he is currently faster than Srinath was in 1995, 1996 sort of time. Srinath was still bowling at 90mph in 1999, when he was timed for the first time, and that was at 30. And of course we'll never know how fast Kapil was..

Srinath was certainly not a 90 mph bowler in that period, and i couldnt really care what one clocked ball on the speedometer shows to disprove it. having watched him at the time, he was generally around the 85-86 mark at best. the only time he could possibly have been close to the 90 mph mark was when he made his debut.

I'd say Patel and Sreesanth are about equal in ability with old and new ball (hopefully India might actually play with some balls that swing for more than about 7 or 8 overs when new), Patel is probably a bit more accurate and certainly 10kph or so quicker.
I fail to see how you can suggest that Patel has nothing to offer with the new-ball as he clearly moved it every bit as much as Pathan.

they are both different bowlers IMO. Sreesanth is a classical outswing bowler while Munaf is an inswing bowler. Both of them can get it to reverse even if munaf is better at it. More importantly for me however is that Sreesanth is by far the smarter bowler and hes always trying to do something different, therefore being a lot more difficult to play in all conditions.

 

[Richard]

And if you look closely i initially said this "The way England has been batting lately, their fans should be worried about England's performance against any attack."

And after a dozen post you have come to admit that Eng were le down due to self destruction. Nice job

No, I started it by saying "I can't help being extremely worried by the prospect of a Shoaib-Asif-Kaneria attack.
Just imagine if Shabbir can sort-out his action. Then they really would have some attack, with that batting-line-up."
You then said England would have problems whatever - I said "good observation, Einstein" - and you also contested what I said about Pakistan's attack challenging anyone, singling-out Australia.
I contested that Pakistan's attack, were things to fall into place, would indeed trouble anyone including Australia.

everyone has, he's no different and that doesn't make him all that dangerous.

No, everyone hasn't. Some bowlers have very limited scope for improvement. The improvements Kaneria could make are very straightforward, that anyone could do with practice - ie spinning the ball a bit more on the Leg-Break.

Sarfraz is known to make people corrupt, thats why he's usually kept away from coaching youngster. To expect Sarfraz to rectify a life long chucker's action and also turn him into a mentally tough chap is just asking for miracles.

Err - I hardly think Sarfraz is "known to make people corrupt".
I don't see why Sarfraz was consulted if someone (probably quite a few people, in fact) didn't think he could do a good job.
There are plenty of other people who could've been consulted (Imran, Daryl Foster, Bob Cottam, etc.) - but someone, somewhere, chose Sarfraz.

 

[Richard]

err you just said that shabbir bowled better than naved has ever managed. whether or not it was for that one test or not, the fact is that naved bowled better than him, and honestly if he were to sort out his accuracy, hed be able to do that with greater consistency.

That's one huge "if".
I certainly don't think Rana bowled better than Shabbir in the Second and First Tests respectively.

except that it wasnt a straight ball but an inswinging yorker.

Was it? I must've missed the big, hooping inswing, then. It moved a bit, yes, but only a bit and a Vaughan pre-2005 I'd have backed to keep it out.

as did naved for that matter. and to be honest with you i cant even remember shabbir bowling 2 good balls in that test match.

The Collingwood and Trescothick wicket balls were both good-'uns in my estimation.