Pakistan's chances in England this summer

[tooextracool]

And how often has he done said things?
If it were that often I'd imagine his strike-rate might be just a teeny bit better than it is..

and could it not be that his accuracy has messed it up for him? not to mention that hes been in and out of the side after every game? his performance against England while not outstanding was still credit worthy, and dont you think theres a reason why almost everyone whos seen him bowl in FC cricket both at home and in England have been in awe about how his performances? nonetheless if and only if his accuracy was better(and even if that might require a lot of work), he could become one hell of a world class bowler.

I'm perfectly confident the Vaughan of any time pre-2005 - however bad he might have been in 2003 and 2004 - would have had a decent stab at keeping it out. Vaughan has only had problems missing straight balls since The Ashes.

except that it wasnt a straight ball.

We see even good inswinging Yorkers dug-out plenty of the time. I can't think of another that he bowled in the spell. It was a good delivery, yes, but I don't think it was as good as you are painting it.

whats your point? why cant you give credit to the bowler for bowling a fanstic delivery that would have got most world class batsmen out? and no matter how much you keep trying to say it Vaughan is not world class anymore, and therefore its no surprise that he missed it completely.

Really? I find they were both extremely good, wicket-taking deliveries. Both moved of the pitch, Collingwood's to take the outside-edge, Trescothick's the inside..

and just because they moved off the pitch doesnt make it an unplayable delivery. the one to collingwood in particular would barely cause problems to any set batsman.

 

[Richard]

You've got 4 or 5 medals?

What are they for?

Things like winning the Devon Cricket League u17 2002, winning the Northumberland League u9 Rugby Cup 1994\95, that sort of thing.
Nothing incredible.

 

[Richard]

and could it not be that his accuracy has messed it up for him? not to mention that hes been in and out of the side after every game?

I think, however wayward he is, if he really possesed so many wicket-taking tricks he'd have a record like Matthew Hoggard had in 2001\02 and the first half of 2002 - usually expensive but with a pretty good strike-rate.
Yet his strike-rate is terrible - not just his economy-rate - which suggests that if he does indeed have such a bag of tricks, he's done a pretty poor job of using it.

his performance against England while not outstanding was still credit worthy, and dont you think theres a reason why almost everyone whos seen him bowl in FC cricket both at home and in England have been in awe about how his performances? nonetheless if and only if his accuracy was better(and even if that might require a lot of work), he could become one hell of a world class bowler.

And that is one hell of an "if".
I haven't heard anyone, really, describe his Pakistani domestic performances as awe-inspiring. In fact, I've heard no-one talk at all of his bowling in domestic cricket before his Sussex stint.

except that it wasnt a straight ball.

It was - it was on the line of the stumps - hence it was straight.

whats your point? why cant you give credit to the bowler for bowling a fanstic delivery that would have got most world class batsmen out? and no matter how much you keep trying to say it Vaughan is not world class anymore, and therefore its no surprise that he missed it completely.

I'd contest that Vaughan ever was World-class. He was, though, Test-class, even if he hasn't been since summer 2005.
I can give credit for bowling a good delivery - but I've seen countless better examples of inswinging Yorkers, and not just with poor balls like those SGs or Kookaburras or whatever they were.

and just because they moved off the pitch doesnt make it an unplayable delivery. the one to collingwood in particular would barely cause problems to any set batsman.

I never called them unplayable - I did, though, call them wicket-taking, which as far as I'm concerned they were.

 

[tooextracool]

Which one? I didn't watch every delivery of the series, probably missed it.
Naved-Ul-Hasan might've bowled far more than 2 good deliveries, but he still bowled his share of rubbish in between.

i cant quite tell you the exact moment when it happened. im fairly certain it was bowled to tresco, im fairly sure that hussain was commentating at the time and was wondering how he came up with a ball like that. obviously it was when the ball was semi old, given that there was conventional and reverse on the same delivery

 

[tooextracool]

I find it perfectly conceivable that someone who, at 30, could bowl high 80s once-in-a-while (and, I might remind you, he bowled one delivery in WC99 timed at 93mph - which suggests he was bowling in the high 80s reasonably often), was at 26-27 capable of bowling deliveries over 90 often enough. Not with Donald-Waqar regularity, but about as often as someone like Gillespie or Wasim Akram.

and as ive said before random clockings have almost always been somewhat innaccurate given that that was probably the only ball he bowled that was clocked over 90 in his career. Most people who watched and played Srinath didnt consider him to be all that quick otherwise they would have mentioned it. AFAIC there is no evidence that he bowled consistently in the high 90s in his 30s.

I don't really see that it requires "genius". It requires a moderately receptive mind. I've not heard Patel speak so I've no clue as to how smart he is, but a good coach can teach a bowler with most of the raw materials such as Patel to become a very good act indeed.

either way as i said i dont see how it affects the fact that i think SS was more impressive in the last few tests. i have not denied that Patel has potential or that he wont become a smart bowler, i just think on the evidence so far, i rate SS higher. you on the other hand go by their FC averages.

 

[Tom Halsey]

australia may not have played quality reverse swing before, but a bowler that reverses the ball both ways is far more difficult to handle than one that just does it one way.

And Shoaib did that.

 

[tooextracool]

I think, however wayward he is, if he really possesed so many wicket-taking tricks he'd have a record like Matthew Hoggard had in 2001\02 and the first half of 2002 - usually expensive but with a pretty good strike-rate.
Yet his strike-rate is terrible - not just his economy-rate - which suggests that if he does indeed have such a bag of tricks, he's done a pretty poor job of using it.

and how many chances has he got? hes rarely ever gotten more than 1 game in a row, hes always in and out of the test side. fact is in test matches he hasnt been given a consistent run, and by and large hes also had to contend with a whole bunch of flat batting conditions in his career. Ironically though his ODI record(where he has been given a consistent run) is exactly like what you described- SR of 28 and ER of 5.4. and its highly unlikely that you will be picking up wickets in ODIs without bowling wicket taking balls and being wayward at such an impressive strike rate.

And that is one hell of an "if".
I haven't heard anyone, really, describe his Pakistani domestic performances as awe-inspiring. In fact, I've heard no-one talk at all of his bowling in domestic cricket before his Sussex stint.

i remember hearing a few pakistan ex players talking about him before. nonetheless plenty of people were proud of his performances at sussex as can be seen in this article:
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/221333.html

It was - it was on the line of the stumps - hence it was straight..

which is why almost every online cricket source and every commnetator called it an 'inswinging yorker'. as said earlier it swung more than enough to cause problems for any batsman, without swinging prodigiously, but how many bowlers swung the ball prodigiously in that series?

I'd contest that Vaughan ever was World-class. He was, though, Test-class, even if he hasn't been since summer 2005.
I can give credit for bowling a good delivery - but I've seen countless better examples of inswinging Yorkers, and not just with poor balls like those SGs or Kookaburras or whatever they were.

you have to look at the conditions. bowling an inswinging yorker in conditions where any county pro can swing the ball is hardly anything brilliant. bowling an inswinging yorker in dead flat conditions where almost every other bowler struggled to swing the ball is quite unbelievable. It was an excellent ball given the conditions, and one that a player hardly expects in such conditions.

I never called them unplayable - I did, though, call them wicket-taking, which as far as I'm concerned they were.

and werent you the one who used to say that a wicket taking delivery is one that is an RUD? that ball was not even close, most set batsman would have played it with ease.

 

[tooextracool]

And Shoaib did that.

shoaib swings the old ball both ways? what have you been smoking?
ive only ever seen 2 bowlers bowl reverse outswingers, one was wasim akram, the other simon jones. Flintoff can get it to go away marginally, but even he cant do it as well as the other 2.

 

[tooextracool]

Err - it was more than just The Oval (when he had him dropped by Warne) - he'd got him out in exactly the same way once before in the series, had caused play-and-misses with similar balls on several occasions, and had dismissed him again that way in the ODIs.
The fact that a bowler as rubbish as Lee caused Pietersen problems attests to the fact that Sreesanth causing him similar problems is no massive achievement.

i dont think lee bowled complete rubbish in that series. there were times when he bowled well and others when he bowled poorly. unfortunately when he bowls poorly hes complete rubbish, and when hes good hes not absolutely brilliant.
i dont care whether lee caused Pietersen problems, SS bowled deliveries that would have caused any players problems, and given that he accomplished it on a pitch as flat as nagpur, that deserves some credit.

 

[Richard]

i cant quite tell you the exact moment when it happened. im fairly certain it was bowled to tresco, im fairly sure that hussain was commentating at the time and was wondering how he came up with a ball like that. obviously it was when the ball was semi old, given that there was conventional and reverse on the same delivery

Ah, hang-on, yes I think I remember it now.
Still - what does one delivery really prove? If he'd bowled even 2 of them, sure - but one can just be a one-off, you've said that enough times.

 

[Richard]

and as ive said before random clockings have almost always been somewhat innaccurate given that that was probably the only ball he bowled that was clocked over 90 in his career. Most people who watched and played Srinath didnt consider him to be all that quick otherwise they would have mentioned it. AFAIC there is no evidence that he bowled consistently in the high 90s in his 30s.

Plenty of people called him "the quickest bowler ever to play for India". Not up there with the very fastest of Donald\Waqar, no, but quick nonetheless, and I think find it near enough inconceivable that he never got clocked in the 90s again in his career. I certainly don't think he bowled anything in the high 90s, but the odd few in the low 90s is not inconceivable.

either way as i said i dont see how it affects the fact that i think SS was more impressive in the last few tests. i have not denied that Patel has potential or that he wont become a smart bowler, i just think on the evidence so far, i rate SS higher. you on the other hand go by their FC averages.

Yes, I do, because I think there's probably something in those, too. I don't really think we can judge as much on 2 Tests, where both have bowled relatively well, as we can on a career discrepancy of almost 9 runs per wicket.

 

[Richard]

and how many chances has he got? hes rarely ever gotten more than 1 game in a row, hes always in and out of the test side. fact is in test matches he hasnt been given a consistent run, and by and large hes also had to contend with a whole bunch of flat batting conditions in his career.

Rana played 5 out of Pakistan's last 6 Tests before the Second India Test. I hardly think he's demanded selection in the times he's been left-out.

Ironically though his ODI record(where he has been given a consistent run) is exactly like what you described- SR of 28 and ER of 5.4. and its highly unlikely that you will be picking up wickets in ODIs without bowling wicket taking balls and being wayward at such an impressive strike rate.

It's only recently that he's been effective at wicket-taking in ODIs., and from what I can see there's a perfectly fair share of rubbish deliveries that have taken wickets mixed-in with the wicket-taking balls and expensveness - a career pattern shared by several bowlers (Plunkett to date, Sami, Lee, Anderson, RP Singh, Zaheer Khan, Ntini recently, Dilhara Fernando).

i remember hearing a few pakistan ex players talking about him before. nonetheless plenty of people were proud of his performances at sussex as can be seen in this article:
http://content-nz.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/221333.html

I know, I've heard much appraisal of his Sussex performances - which I thought strange from a county who've possessed genuine World-class players in Bevan and Goodwin of late.

which is why almost every online cricket source and every commnetator called it an 'inswinging yorker'. as said earlier it swung more than enough to cause problems for any batsman, without swinging prodigiously, but how many bowlers swung the ball prodigiously in that series?

Not many, which just shows that swing wasn't easy to bowl.
Look, it was a decent delivery - but a REALLY good inswinging Yorker was near enough impossible to bowl with the ball used and outfield conditions prevailing that series.

and werent you the one who used to say that a wicket taking delivery is one that is an RUD? that ball was not even close, most set batsman would have played it with ease.

I've never said anything of the sort, wicket-taking balls can be wideish fullish away-swingers that draw a drive and an edge. It's still a faulty stroke, but it's still good bowling.
No, the 2 said deliveries were certainly not unplayable but they did deserve the wickets that came off them.

 

[Richard]

i dont think lee bowled complete rubbish in that series. there were times when he bowled well and others when he bowled poorly. unfortunately when he bowls poorly hes complete rubbish, and when hes good hes not absolutely brilliant.

I think Lee bowled pretty terribly for just about all the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Tests. Yes, there were spells where he got 3 wickets in 6 overs or so, but rarely were they sustained bursts of wicket-taking deliveries.

i dont care whether lee caused Pietersen problems, SS bowled deliveries that would have caused any players problems, and given that he accomplished it on a pitch as flat as nagpur, that deserves some credit.

Yes, indeed - but you mentioning causing Pietersen problems doesn't exactly say much, because that sort of bowling has always caused him problems.

 

[tooextracool]

Ah, hang-on, yes I think I remember it now.
Still - what does one delivery really prove? If he'd bowled even 2 of them, sure - but one can just be a one-off, you've said that enough times.

it proves that he can get the ball to reverse and he can swing the new ball. i havent seen too many bowlers manage to swing a ball both ways even on a single ball at any point of their careers before. and he bowled plenty of other brilliant deliveries in the series.

 

[tooextracool]

I think Lee bowled pretty terribly for just about all the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Tests. Yes, there were spells where he got 3 wickets in 6 overs or so, but rarely were they sustained bursts of wicket-taking deliveries.

thats besides the point. his spell of bowling before lunch at the oval was good bowling, and thats when he caused pietersen problems.

Yes, indeed - but you mentioning causing Pietersen problems doesn't exactly say much, because that sort of bowling has always caused him problems.

err when i said that i didnt mean that he was bowling well because he caused pietersen problems, i meant that the spell that he bowled to Pietersen was a quite brilliant spell of bowling that would have caused anyone problems.

 

[tooextracool]

Rana played 5 out of Pakistan's last 6 Tests before the Second India Test. I hardly think he's demanded selection in the times he's been left-out.

yes and not surprisingly that 6th test was pretty much right in the middle of the 5 tests that he played. he hasnt played more than 3 tests in a row in his entire career, and the time that he did play 3 tests in a row, he was actually quite impressive.
look i honestly dont care what you think about Rana, i think he has plenty of potential if he sorts out his accuracy. i dont think you even have a reason as to why he is poor and are just dismissing him based on his record.

It's only recently that he's been effective at wicket-taking in ODIs., and from what I can see there's a perfectly fair share of rubbish deliveries that have taken wickets mixed-in with the wicket-taking balls and expensveness - a career pattern shared by several bowlers (Plunkett to date, Sami, Lee, Anderson, RP Singh, Zaheer Khan, Ntini recently, Dilhara Fernando).

its a 1.5 year period actually, which in itself is quite impressive. AFAIC ive already said that hes bowled a lot of tripe in between those wicket taking deliveries, but hes also bowled plenty of wicket taking deliveries. and if you honestly believe that plunkett, sami, zaheer khan, dilhara and anderson have bowled too many wicket taking deliveries in their entire careers, you must be out of your mind.

I know, I've heard much appraisal of his Sussex performances - which I thought strange from a county who've possessed genuine World-class players in Bevan and Goodwin of late..

and could it be that he actually bowled well?

Not many, which just shows that swing wasn't easy to bowl.
Look, it was a decent delivery - but a REALLY good inswinging Yorker was near enough impossible to bowl with the ball used and outfield conditions prevailing that series.

which is exactly my point. if a bowler is able to produce a delivery like that in conditions as batter friendly as the ones in pakistan, it does take some brilliant bowling. i dont think there was a better ball than that in the entire series.

I've never said anything of the sort, wicket-taking balls can be wideish fullish away-swingers that draw a drive and an edge. It's still a faulty stroke, but it's still good bowling.
No, the 2 said deliveries were certainly not unplayable but they did deserve the wickets that came off them.

1 did while still being playable, the other one clearly didnt.

 

[tooextracool]

Plenty of people called him "the quickest bowler ever to play for India". Not up there with the very fastest of Donald\Waqar, no, but quick nonetheless, and I think find it near enough inconceivable that he never got clocked in the 90s again in his career. I certainly don't think he bowled anything in the high 90s, but the odd few in the low 90s is not inconceivable.

i dont think ive heard of too many other indian bowlers before srinath bowling in the mid-high 80s, hence the claim that he was the quickest indian bowler ever is not too far fetched. i honestly dont think he ever bowled a ball in the 90s, certainly not in his 30s thats for sure, speedometers have had plenty of random clockings in the past, and this could well have been one of them,especially considering that it only happened once.

Yes, I do, because I think there's probably something in those, too. I don't really think we can judge as much on 2 Tests, where both have bowled relatively well, as we can on a career discrepancy of almost 9 runs per wicket.

and have i said that they are world class? i just said that based on their performances in their 2 tests, i rate SS marginally higher than patel, while i think both of them have plenty of potential.

 

[Richard]

it proves that he can get the ball to reverse and he can swing the new ball.

I've not said he can't. I've said if he was so good at doing it, his SR would be a bit lower than it is.

 

[Richard]

thats besides the point. his spell of bowling before lunch at the oval was good bowling, and thats when he caused pietersen problems.

It's not the only time he caused him problems on the tour - there were several other occasions, using exactly the same tactic.

err when i said that i didnt mean that he was bowling well because he caused pietersen problems, i meant that the spell that he bowled to Pietersen was a quite brilliant spell of bowling that would have caused anyone problems.

Why even mention Pietersen? It was a good spell, yes, it might well have caused most players problems, but the way I interpreted it you were suggesting it was somehow special because of Pietersen being on-strike.

 

[Richard]

yes and not surprisingly that 6th test was pretty much right in the middle of the 5 tests that he played. he hasnt played more than 3 tests in a row in his entire career, and the time that he did play 3 tests in a row, he was actually quite impressive.
look i honestly dont care what you think about Rana, i think he has plenty of potential if he sorts out his accuracy. i dont think you even have a reason as to why he is poor and are just dismissing him based on his record.

I think he's by-and-large bowled a heap of rubbish in his Test career, excepting that Faisalabad game.
I don't see that you can really justify picking someone for a load of Tests in a row with the record he's got.
I also think it's pretty unlikely that he'll "sort out" his accuracy, because that's something that's extremely difficult to do.

its a 1.5 year period actually, which in itself is quite impressive. AFAIC ive already said that hes bowled a lot of tripe in between those wicket taking deliveries, but hes also bowled plenty of wicket taking deliveries. and if you honestly believe that plunkett, sami, zaheer khan, dilhara and anderson have bowled too many wicket taking deliveries in their entire careers, you must be out of your mind.

Yes, they have - their ODI careers have been characterised by being smashed all over the park but getting regular wickets with good deliveries and bad - exactly like Rana Naved-Ul-Hasan.

and could it be that he actually bowled well?

It could - he probably did - but what I meant was that Peter Moores' reaction was a little strange, as he talked-up Rana as something pretty sensational, when compared to Bevan and Goodwin he's clearly anything but.

which is exactly my point. if a bowler is able to produce a delivery like that in conditions as batter friendly as the ones in pakistan, it does take some brilliant bowling. i dont think there was a better ball than that in the entire series.

I think some of the Shoaib inswinging-Yorkers were at least as good.

1 did while still being playable, the other one clearly didnt.

I think both did, while still being playable.