Pakistan's chances in England this summer

[tooextracool]

Right.

So, because McGrath spends most of his time bowling outside off-stump, he's bowling rubbish?

incase you havent realised, there is a major difference between bowling just outside the off stump and bowling wide outside off stump. the main difference between mcgrath and shabbir on that day is that with mcgrath you cant be sure whether to leave it or not, because it might just come back and take the off stump. with shabbir there was no chance in hell of any ball hitting the stumps and if you arent threatening the stumps then why in the blue hell would any batsman want to play a shot against you?

 

[SJS]

40%

 

[tooextracool]

Rubbish. With reverse swing, all you need to do is change the shiny/rough sides around. You need an action that is suited to reverse swing (and Akhtar's certainly is) and from then on it's a case of switching the shiny side around.

Obviously, with orthodox swing, it's a bit harder to swing it both ways because there are slight variations in action.

which is of course why of course almost every commentator was baffled by Simon Jones reverse swinging the ball away from the right hander in the summer of 2004. and if you dont think bowling reverse away swingers requires just as much ability as orthodox away swingers, then you're clearly not watching. further if you were watching that series, no one managed to reverse swing the ball consistently, largely because the ball didnt deteriorate enough for that to happen. infact a large proportion of shoaib akthars wickets came from the new ball as well as from a bunch of slower balls.

 

[tooextracool]

It was an example, wasn't necessarily about England's innings.

If you can't take 1 wicket seriously, how can you take 4 wickets seriously? Besides, I think Sreenath has looked a very good bowler.

err how does that make any sense? do you not realise that 4 wickets>>>>>>>1 wicket? and we were referring to the england innings hence its perfectly valid. whether or not shree santh has looked like a good bowler or not, england are not expected to be perfectly good against pace bowling if they keep getting out to these bowlers on flat tracks. and pathan getting more than 1 wicket in the series is in itself a joke.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, but their bowling averages were over 30.

naved averaged 2 runs over 30, clearly they got away with him
akhtar averaged in the low 20s and shabbir averaged in the teens.
in the current series, sree santh averages in the mid 20s and munaf averages in the teens.
clearly quite brilliant batting against pace there.

The pitches looked flat, but they weren't that flat. Pakistan's innings in the 3rd Test aside, no-one (team wise) really got away from the bowlers).

and could it not be because England and pakistan to an extent batted poorly?
Certainly 500+ was there for the taking in the first test, and in the 2nd both teams got over 400 in the first innings.

 

[Tom Halsey]

naved averaged 2 runs over 30, clearly they got away with him
akhtar averaged in the low 20s and shabbir averaged in the teens.
in the current series, sree santh averages in the mid 20s and munaf averages in the teens.
clearly quite brilliant batting against pace there.



and could it not be because England and pakistan to an extent batted poorly?
Certainly 500+ was there for the taking in the first test, and in the 2nd both teams got over 400 in the first innings.

Hmm, so clearly England's scores in Pakistan weren't so bad then?

Those pitches aren't easy to bat on when you're not used to them, because the slow-and-low nature of them and the occasionally two-paced nature of them is so different from our conditions.

 

[Tom Halsey]

err how does that make any sense? do you not realise that 4 wickets>>>>>>>1 wicket? and we were referring to the england innings hence its perfectly valid. whether or not shree santh has looked like a good bowler or not, england are not expected to be perfectly good against pace bowling if they keep getting out to these bowlers on flat tracks. and pathan getting more than 1 wicket in the series is in itself a joke.

Erm, how are you judging anyone on 4 wickets? It's hardly any more than 1 wicket.

 

[Jamee999]

It's 3 more.

 

[Tom Halsey]

which is of course why of course almost every commentator was baffled by Simon Jones reverse swinging the ball away from the right hander in the summer of 2004. and if you dont think bowling reverse away swingers requires just as much ability as orthodox away swingers, then you're clearly not watching. further if you were watching that series, no one managed to reverse swing the ball consistently, largely because the ball didnt deteriorate enough for that to happen. infact a large proportion of shoaib akthars wickets came from the new ball as well as from a bunch of slower balls.

The only reason Australia struggled against it so much was because they've never really faced it before (and incidentally, Akhtar has also destroyed the Aussies before when they faced him).

Of course reverse away-swingers are harder to bowl than orthodox ones, because it requires a different action, which I said. But certainly they're no harder to bowl than reverse in-swingers.

If a large portion of Akhtar's wickets came with the new ball, you've already admitted the new ball moved around...

 

[Tom Halsey]

incase you havent realised, there is a major difference between bowling just outside the off stump and bowling wide outside off stump. the main difference between mcgrath and shabbir on that day is that with mcgrath you cant be sure whether to leave it or not, because it might just come back and take the off stump. with shabbir there was no chance in hell of any ball hitting the stumps and if you arent threatening the stumps then why in the blue hell would any batsman want to play a shot against you?

But if McGrath was playing on those super-flat pitches in Pakistan, there would have been no chance of that?

You seem to forget that McGrath has been successfully left before (most famously by NZ in 2001/02).

 

[Tom Halsey]

It's 3 more.

In the greater scheme of things, it's nothing.

You can't judge anything on 4 wickets.

 

[open365]

40%

I'd say 30%, England kick *** on home turf.

 

[tooextracool]

In the greater scheme of things, it's nothing.

You can't judge anything on 4 wickets.

thats like saying taking 7 wickets is the same as taking 4. in other words harmison 7/12 is about as good as 4/12.
fact is that 4 wickets is more than 1/3rd of the side, while 1 is about 1/11th.

 

[tooextracool]

But if McGrath was playing on those super-flat pitches in Pakistan, there would have been no chance of that?

im sure mcgrath is more than capable of realising that if the ball isnt threatening the stumps, that you have to bowl straighter.

You seem to forget that McGrath has been successfully left before (most famously by NZ in 2001/02).

and indeed NZ have had such remarkable success using that ploy against him since then havent they? mcgrath had a bad series simple as that.

 

[tooextracool]

The only reason Australia struggled against it so much was because they've never really faced it before (and incidentally, Akhtar has also destroyed the Aussies before when they faced him).

im sorry what? who has ever faced simon jones reverse swingers succesfully? NZ were absolutely clueless against it in the summer of 2004, SA had no idea how to play it when in the one game that he did reverse it in SA and Australia had no idea how to play it either. Australia have only ever been destroyed by Akhtars reverse swing once and hes been by and large treated quite comfortably since then.

Of course reverse away-swingers are harder to bowl than orthodox ones, because it requires a different action, which I said. But certainly they're no harder to bowl than reverse in-swingers.

really? so howcome no one does it then? glenn mcgrath, brett lee, craig white, darren gough, abdul razzaq all reverse swung the ball in one direction and one direction only.

If a large portion of Akhtar's wickets came with the new ball, you've already admitted the new ball moved around...

and what part of England batting poorly against him did you not get?

 

[tooextracool]

Hmm, so clearly England's scores in Pakistan weren't so bad then?

Those pitches aren't easy to bat on when you're not used to them, because the slow-and-low nature of them and the occasionally two-paced nature of them is so different from our conditions.

why were they not so bad? in the first test when they should have got 500+ they got dismissed for 418. in the 2nd innings they didnt even make half of that. in the 2nd test they were 162/6 in the 2nd innings. and lets just not even talk about the 3rd test.
and Englands history of screwing up with the bat can be taken back a little longer, how many times during the Ashes was it suggested that their first innings scores was not good enough? surely almost everyone was disappointed with the 407 at edgbaston, given the pitch and the quality of bowling. they definetly messed up at Lords, they messed up in the 2nd innings at edgbaston when the game was there for the taking. they nearly lost the game with the bat in the 2nd innings at Trent bridge, and they batted poorly in both innings at the oval only for Pietersen and the australian fielders to save the game for them. By and large the pattern in the Ashes was - England screw up with the bat, and Jones and Flintoff save them with the ball.

 

[Tom Halsey]

thats like saying taking 7 wickets is the same as taking 4. in other words harmison 7/12 is about as good as 4/12.
fact is that 4 wickets is more than 1/3rd of the side, while 1 is about 1/11th.

Of course 7/12 is better than 4/12.

You can't judge anything on one innings of 4 wickets (the crucial thing here is it's only 1 innings) - especially when they conceded 96 runs for those 4 wickets.

 

[Tom Halsey]

im sorry what? who has ever faced simon jones reverse swingers succesfully? NZ were absolutely clueless against it in the summer of 2004, SA had no idea how to play it when in the one game that he did reverse it in SA and Australia had no idea how to play it either. Australia have only ever been destroyed by Akhtars reverse swing once and hes been by and large treated quite comfortably since then.

Erm, I meant Australia had never really faced quality reverse-swing before, not who has ever faced Simon Jones before, apart from the odd occasion.

No-one handles Shoaib comfortably when he's reversing it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

really? so howcome no one does it then? glenn mcgrath, brett lee, craig white, darren gough, abdul razzaq all reverse swung the ball in one direction and one direction only.

Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee don't reverse it.

Gough and White reversed it both ways, it was just ofte thought that when it went out, it was orthodox, when it wasn't.

I don't know about Razzaq.

 

[Tom Halsey]

and what part of England batting poorly against him did you not get?

There were some poor shots.

There were also some very good balls. You admitted that the new ball moved around a while ago. You then said that Shoaib took a high proportion of his wickets with the new ball, with the ball moving around.