The 2nd best?

[Zinzan]

According to Stats Guru,

Games Played Between NZ and Pakistan in Sharjah during the 2000's.

Pakistan - Won 4. Lost 0. NZ - Won 0. Lost 4.

Edit: Strangely enough stats guru doesn't show the Bank Alfalah result on a direct search. I have to search for NZ's series to find it. Even if we include those figures, the balance is still titled Pakistan's way by a factor of more than 50 percent.


Blaze,

Remember that I did not mention the 5-0 whitewash. I recognised that NZ were playing without their premier players. But might I direct your attention to the series before that? 3-0. Test Matches 1-0 which would most likely have turned into 2-0 if the bomb attack hadn't happened. And this is not an isolated series, why is it so difficult to accept that NZ have always had trouble getting the best of contests played outside NZ?



Consistent? I hear about this so much, so I decided to do some investigation of my own.

In the last 5 ODI series Pakistan played, they have won 10 times out of a total 18 times.
NZ have also won 10 games out a total 19 games. So there is no way in the world that NZ is more consistent than Pakistan, specially during the last six months or so - the period which matters.

About John Bracewell, mayhaps. But the same arguement can be made about Pakistan playing abroad pre-Woolmer.

You can look back at history as much as you like, but no-one can deny that in the last 18 months (recent form) New Zealand has had much better result than Pakistan. It's quite simple reaay.

The only team that has had the better of NZ recently has been Australia.

NZ has had the better of.....

England
South Africa
West indies
Pakistan
Bangladesh (probably doesn't need mentioning)
and
Sri lanka


in the last 18 months...

In that time we haven't played India or Zim

 

[honestbharani]

Australia



big gap


England


reasonable gap


India


small gap


the other teams






In ODIs,


Australia

reasonable gap


New Zealand
Pakistan


small gap


Sri Lanka


big gap


the other teams.

 

[Beleg]

why is 18 month the cut-off limit? why not 6 months? or 12 months? or 2 years? In the last five series Pakistan has played, they have got the better of Sri-Lanka, India, West Indians, Zimbabwe and other minnows. The only top teams they haven't played are NZ and South Africa. The only team to get the better of Pakistan has been Australia.

And I don't get the better form part. How have they had better results than Pakistan when the number of wins is the same (both have performed similarly against Australia)

 

[Zinzan]

why is 18 month the cut-off limit? why not 6 months? or 12 months? or 2 years? In the last five series Pakistan has played, they have got the better of Sri-Lanka, India, West Indians, Zimbabwe and other minnows. The only top teams they haven't played are NZ and South Africa. The only team to get the better of Pakistan has been Australia.

And I don't get the better form part. How have they had better results than Pakistan when the number of wins is the same (both have performed similarly against Australia)

Fair enough to question the period of time to judge a teams recent form.

But even if its 6 months, 12 months or 18 months. NZ have had a better record against other teams (australia aside) than Pakistan. Including having having beaten pakistan 4-1 (when both teams were at full strength).

Once your talking 2 years ago , you aren't talking recent form anymore.

If you were then NZ would still be considered a top test side. They were 3rd two years ago

 

[Zinzan]

why is 18 month the cut-off limit? why not 6 months? or 12 months? or 2 years? In the last five series Pakistan has played, they have got the better of Sri-Lanka, India, West Indians, Zimbabwe and other minnows. The only top teams they haven't played are NZ and South Africa. The only team to get the better of Pakistan has been Australia.

And I don't get the better form part. How have they had better results than Pakistan when the number of wins is the same (both have performed similarly against Australia)

Is was only 14 months ago that NZ played a fully fit pakistan and it was 4-1. Sure thats not current form , but it is the last time they played

 

[Jono]

Tests: England
ODIs: Pakistan or NZ. If both are at their peak, I'd back Pakistan, but NZ are on song more than Pakistan who are about as reliable as betting your life on a game of blackjack.

 

[Swervy]

anyway perhaps we shld continue this discussion after the one dayers.......or even after the first one tomorrow! shld be interesting stuff

Round One: Swerves 1 deeps 0
only kidding Deeps

 

[RealPk]

You may argue England and India have a better batting than Pakistan, but I'd expect a evenly balanced contest between them. But Pakistan clearly have the superior bowling attack( considering their bowlers come back) than any other team. And when you put bowling and batting performace together of each team, Pakistan do come on top.

Right, I absolutely agree!

 

[Swervy]

Right, I absolutely agree!

take Shoaib out of the equation and I really dont think Pakistans bowling matches up with Engalnds

 

[marc71178]

Re: Razzaq, he is arguably the best hitter in the world at the moment,

Steady on!

 

[chaminda_00]

How is f***ing Pakistan or New Zealand both better then Sri Lanka. Last time i checked that we played series aganist Pakistan in the last 18 months and won them both (Asia Cup and Paktel Cup). We smashed the South Africa 5 nil, in the last 12 mouths and out of all the three teams we were the closest to Australia, we took two games off them. Pakistan took one game and New Zealand took no games aganist them (5 nil ring a bell). New Zealand and England beat us in one game each. You can't really say that New Zealand are better then us cus they won one game.

If u look at the Win and Loss record for 18 months and 12 months u will see that Sri Lanka is better:
18 Months -
SRL (W 21, L 8)
NZL (W 20, L 18, NR 3)
PAK (W 25, L 21)
12 Months -
SRL (W 18, L 5)
NZL (W 10, L 7)
PAK (W 15, L 11)

Then if u look at Series Results then you'll see the same result. i didn't include Videcom Cup, the NZ/SL series and SL/ENG series as they were all rain effected, as well as the series NZ/BAN and SL/ZIM. These are from the last 18 months:
SRL (W 3, L 2)
NZL (W 3, L 3, D 1)
PAK (W 1, L 7)

Sri Lanka are clearly the second best side in ODI we have only lost to Australia in the last 18 months. In that time we have beat Pakistan twice, India and South Africa (well we smashed them) The only thing that New Zealand have over us is that they beat West Indies and England, but that get canselled out by the fact that they won as many games as they lost. We have hardly lost any games in the last 18 months and the only series we have lost was the Champions Throphy and the Australia Series.

Now do u still think that Sri Lanka are still behind New Zealand and in particular Pakistan???

 

[cric_manic]

nz are definatly a better odi side than SL, you can pull out all the stats you want but the truth is that the tsunami kept the SL cricket team from a thrashing in the ODI series.You saw from the first and only game that SL were clearly out of there depth.If the two teams were to meet in a 5 odi series now i would say nz Would win it 4-1 at least if not 5-0

 

[chaminda_00]

nz are definatly a better odi side than SL, you can pull out all the stats you want but the truth is that the tsunami saved the SL cricket team from a thrashing in the ODI series.You saw from the first and only game that SL were clearly out of there depth.If the two teams were to meet in a 5 odi series now i would say nz Would win it 4-1 at least if not 5-0

The only reason we lost the first game was that we were not match fit, we would have won that series pretty easier after that consider our superior OD form and abilty. You give me a vaild reason why they are better then Sri Lanka, come on im waiting. Is it cus u were so competive aganist Australia. is it cus u beat the so called 3rd best side in the world (pakistan) twice and won pretty easierly. Let me hear some reason why they are better.

 

[psxpro]

The only reason we lost the first game was that we were not match fit, we would have won that series pretty easier after that consider our superior OD form and abilty. You give me a vaild reason why they are better then Sri Lanka, come on im waiting. Is it cus u were so competive aganist Australia. is it cus u beat the so called 3rd best side in the world (pakistan) twice and won pretty easierly. Let me hear some reason why they are better.

We thrashed pakistan 4-1/
Southafrica 5-1.
We went to england and won every game vs England and westindies.
We went to Australia And drew 1-1 (would have been 2-0 to nz had it not been rediculous umpiring in the 2nd match)

We lost 5-0 To australia but we did have a lot of injuries.
I think Srilanka on recent performance deserve to be no 2 with NZ or a bit below but I really thinkwe would have beaten you in the odi series here comfortably.

 

[cric_manic]

its just my opinion man
Calm down
At home Sl will be a lot harder. Nz have been pretty hard to beat at home
Beat SA
Beat PAK
Beat IND
mabye more,those are just of the top of my head
and we also won the tri series in SL(the bank alfalah cup or something like that)
and the match fitness cannot be blamed for there loss if look at some of the shots they played

 

[chaminda_00]

its just my opinion man
Calm down
At home Sl will be a lot harder. Nz have been pretty hard to beat at home
Beat SA
Beat PAK
Beat IND
mabye more,those are just of the top of my head
and we also won the tri series in SL(the bank alfalah cup or something like that)
and the match fitness cannot be blamed for there loss if look at some of the shots they played

Im not that serious i think it is pretty close between New Zealand and Sri Lanka, the fact that u guys got smashed so badly aganist Australia and how competive we were would make us No 2. We all have injuries, i can't remember the last time that we had a full stength bowling attack, so u can't really blame injuries. We both beat SA (we smashed them), beat Pakistan, but u guys lost to them at away 5-0 (second string side, even so shows ur lack of depth). That series in SL were u won was over 2 years ago, not recent. I think we shade u, but im really p*ssed of that people actually think that Pakistan are any where near us, we beat them twice, played better aganist Australia, but they still think their better then us.

[EDIT] You could say ur better cus you won away from home in England but IMO the pitches in England aren't not that match different then the ones in New Zealand. Both similar in bonce, seam and assitant to spin. Their isn't that much variation in the pitches IMO.

 

[Unattainableguy]

Well, the reasoning behind NZ or SL being the 2nd best ODI team is not very convincing from both of you.

So I'll say Pakistan are the 2nd best. They're better in both aspects of the game--batting and bowling.

Bowlers from SL and NZ aren't the same class as Shoaib Akhtar, Shabbir Ahmed, Umer Gul, Saqlain Mushtaq, and Kaneria. Even all the main NZ bowlers average near 30s or more! Coming to Sri Lanka, I don't think they have any quality bowler either other than Murlitharan and Chaminda Vaas, which has always made me wonder before any Sri Lankan match: how are they going to bowl the rest 30 overs?

Batting: Pakistan have had inconsistent openers for sometime now. However, even with such inconsistency, they appear to be of the same standard as others from both teams.
But Pakistan's batting strengh lies in their middle-order batsmen and lower down the order hitters. So many times, they've lost quick 3-4 wickets, and yet have gone on to make/chase scores of well over 280-300, which you wouldn't expect from Sri Lanka or New Zealand. Name any batsman from either team who is as good as Inzamam or Youhana to back it's team in a pressurous situation. Or if you can't do that, then maybe name a hitter as good as Afridi or Razzak to win a lost match for his team.

 

[Swervy]

Well, the reasoning behind NZ or SL being the 2nd best ODI team is not very convincing from both of you.

So I'll say Pakistan are the 2nd best. They're better in both aspects of the game--batting and bowling.

Bowlers from SL and NZ aren't the same class as Shoaib Akhtar, Shabbir Ahmed, Umer Gul, Saqlain Mushtaq, and Kaneria. Even all the main NZ bowlers average near 30s or more! Coming to Sri Lanka, I don't think they have any quality bowler either other than Murlitharan and Chaminda Vaas, which has always made me wonder before any Sri Lankan match: how are they going to bowl the rest 30 overs?

Batting: Pakistan have had inconsistent openers for sometime now. However, even with such inconsistency, they appear to be of the same standard as others from both teams.
But Pakistan's batting strengh lies in their middle-order batsmen and lower down the order hitters. So many times, they've lost quick 3-4 wickets, and yet have gone on to make/chase scores of well over 280-300, which you wouldn't expect from Sri Lanka or New Zealand. Name any batsman from either team who is as good as Inzamam or Youhana to back it's team in a pressurous situation. Or if you can't do that, then maybe name a hitter as good as Afridi or Razzak to win a lost match for his team.

and heres what the official table says:
Australia 140
Sri Lanka 117
New Zealand 116
Pakistan 108
South Africa 107
West Indies 105
England 103
India 100
Zimbabwe 50
Kenya 26
Bangladesh 11

 

[Unattainableguy]

and heres what the official table says:
Australia 140
Sri Lanka 117
New Zealand 116
Pakistan 108
South Africa 107
West Indies 105
England 103
India 100
Zimbabwe 50
Kenya 26
Bangladesh 11

That is because of unavailablity of their main bowlers for about a year now. No Saqlain Mushtaq, Umer Gul, Shabbir Ahmed, Shoaib Akhtar( 4 main bowlers), and you can't expect them to win consistently then. Even Australia would lose more matches than winning them if McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne did not play. However, players do recover from injuries, and soon it will be a full-strength Pakistan, and that's when you can evaluate the quality of the team.

 

[Swervy]

That is because of unavailablity of their main bowlers for about a year now. No Saqlain Mushtaq, Umer Gul, Shabbir Ahmed, Shoaib Akhtar( 4 main bowlers), and you can't expect them to win consistently then. Even Australia would lose more matches than winning them if McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne did not play. However, players do recover from injuries, and soon it will be a full-strength Pakistan.

Its the old 'if and but' thing though..you cant say that pakistan would have done better if they had those players at full health....coz it didnt happen.

You can only judge how well a team has done based on results produced...and to be honest a measure of a teams strength is how they adapt when injuries do strike.

So its fair enough to say Pakistan has potential to produce results which might allow them to be considered for second place in say 6 to 12 months time,but based on results recently,Pakistan have not shown any consistancy...on their day they can beat anyone,but to be honest just about anyone can beat Pakistan as well.