Pakistan's chances in England this summer

[tooextracool]

That was done a lot in the Murali v Warne average.

then you'd have to do that for every bowler. as a result every bowlers average would go up if you remove tailend wickets.

 

[tooextracool]

Akhtar was bowling very quickly, fully, and swinging it both ways (not a huge amount but enough).

rubbish the only time akhtar swung the ball was with the new ball, infact no one swung the ball after it was more than 10-15 overs old. take a closer look at the games of that series, most of the wickets were from decent/good balls rather than unplayable deliveries, but if you cant play decent/good balls then how can you be a good batsman?

 

[tooextracool]

It means he can swing it both ways, very accurately, in the mid 130s.

did you seriously not watch any of those games? shabbir Ahmad, accurate? that was probably one of his worst games in his career, go back and look at some of the jokes that were made about his bowling in the eng in pak thread, because it was downright disgraceful.

 

[tooextracool]

That's got nothing to do with Sreesanth taking 4 wickets.

4/96 is not worrying.

yes it does. before harmison came in shree santh had 3/61, pathan had 3/71. and we both know on that pitch those are quite good figures.

 

[IndianByHeart]

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.

The way England has been batting lately, their fans should be worried about England's performance against any attack.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's got nothing to do with Sreesanth taking 4 wickets.

4/96 is not worrying.

If 4/96 isn't worrying, what about 10/220. Because that's what it translates to.

 

[Armadillo]

rubbish the only time akhtar swung the ball was with the new ball, infact no one swung the ball after it was more than 10-15 overs old. take a closer look at the games of that series, most of the wickets were from decent/good balls rather than unplayable deliveries, but if you cant play decent/good balls then how can you be a good batsman?

Are you telling me the Giles delivery wasn't unplayable?

 

[Tom Halsey]

yes it does. before harmison came in shree santh had 3/61, pathan had 3/71. and we both know on that pitch those are quite good figures.

They're quite good, yes.

Not worrying.

 

[Tom Halsey]

did you seriously not watch any of those games? shabbir Ahmad, accurate? that was probably one of his worst games in his career, go back and look at some of the jokes that were made about his bowling in the eng in pak thread, because it was downright disgraceful.

Yes I remember the jokes, and remember wondering what the hell they were on about.

I thought he was very accurate, his RPO was no coincidence, and he was swinging it a bit too.

 

[Tom Halsey]

rubbish the only time akhtar swung the ball was with the new ball, infact no one swung the ball after it was more than 10-15 overs old. take a closer look at the games of that series, most of the wickets were from decent/good balls rather than unplayable deliveries, but if you cant play decent/good balls then how can you be a good batsman?

Erm, Akhtar reversed it a fair bit, both ways.

 

[Tom Halsey]

If 4/96 isn't worrying, what about 10/220. Because that's what it translates to.

Ponting's Ashes figures would also have translated to 10/97 or whatever...

They're above average figures, but even in Innings where the team has scored huge runs, there's usually at least 1 bowler with above average figures, with some exceptions of course.

 

[Armadillo]

*Cue TEC writing 3 or 4 posts on why Halsey is wrong*

 

[Richard]

It means he can swing it both ways, very accurately, in the mid 130s.

There's no evidence whatsoever that the fact that his action is illegal means that's possible where it wasn't otherwise. His action hasn't always been dodgy.

 

[Richard]

That's got nothing to do with Sreesanth taking 4 wickets.

4/96 is not worrying.

I'd say it is when you bowl the pile of rubbish Sreesanth did.

 

[Richard]

The way England has been batting lately, their fans should be worried about England's performance against any attack.

Err - that's what we're saying, chum...
The point was that ANYONE would be worried against Pakistan's attack that way.

 

[IndianByHeart]

Err - that's what we're saying, chum...
The point was that ANYONE would be worried against Pakistan's attack that way.

No, not anyone.Australia has faced Pak attack and they did had much trouble!!

England should really sort out their batting problem or they will be in big trouble in future matches.

 

[Richard]

No, not anyone.Australia has faced Pak attack and they did had much trouble!!

Err, they faced it a year ago when Shoaib was still a petulant bugger, Asif was nothing close to the bowler he is today, Kaneria was still pretty novice-like, and Shabbir wasn't even in the side.
An attack of Rana, Sami, Khalil and the rubbish Asif hardly bears comparison.

England should really sort out their batting problem or they will be in big trouble in future matches.

Good observation, Einstein...

 

[Tom Halsey]

then you'd have to do that for every bowler. as a result every bowlers average would go up if you remove tailend wickets.

Of course. That's the point. Sort out the wheat from the chaff.

An average of 30+ even with tailend wickets is not worrying.

 

[Tom Halsey]

There's no evidence whatsoever that the fact that his action is illegal means that's possible where it wasn't otherwise. His action hasn't always been dodgy.

When I first saw him, it was dodgy, and when I saw him against England it was dodgy. I haven't seen all of his games so won't comment.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'd say it is when you bowl the pile of rubbish Sreesanth did.

Heh, I thought Sreesanth bowled OK actually.