The 2nd best?

[Steulen]

Yeah, but NZ played in Pak with a B team. That 5-0 does not reflect their relative strength at all.

I'd say NZ is 2nd best ATM in ODI's.

Tests it's England.

 

[Beleg]

Swervy,

I talked about performance, no?

Performance is something different from a win or loss. You can say that Pakistan lost the recent VB series; there is no question about that. However, it would be wrong and unfair to say that they didn't 'perform' in that series. They looked competetive enough to pose a moderate threat to the Australian team most of the time. To me, NZ side has never looked settled enough to threaten us on the sub-continental pitches. In this case they are like India, not at their best when they are playing outside home. (let us lump in sharjah with the rest of the sub-continent)

Ofcouse, if you go on a bit farther (back in the 90's) Pakistan totally owned NZ. Both in Pakistan AND NZ.

People consider Pakistan to be the second because on paper, and in reality, they have a very well balanced ODI side. Any ODI side would love to get their hands on either Afridi or Razzaq, barring maybe Australia. (And I daresay they wouldn't mind either; specially Afridi) And on occasions when they have performed, they have looked pretty settled and well on their way on the ladder of improvement. And when you add in the fire-power of Shoaib Akhtar (who will remains as a force to reckon with in ODI's for atleast a couple of years) and the relative stability of their middle-order you have a pretty solid team at your hands. (A team, which unlike many others, possesses the ability of virtually turning matches on their heads)

It might come of as cliched or arrogant, but it is Pakistan's unpredictability which makes them so dangerous - you do not know what to expect from them. Hence, they rank pretty high on most people's ODI lists, since ODI cricket isa momentus affair. (NZ fans would remember our tour in 2001. How we won the Auckland test with four debutants, 8-1 odds, captaincy spit while capsizing at Hamilton in a blink-and-you-will-miss-it affair) The aformentioned series, for me, defines Pakistan cricket.

And really, most of the ODI teams in the world are a shadow of what they were five/ten years ago.

Edit (since you seem rather keen on statistics): Pakistan has won 17 out of the 27 matches they played against NZ in 2000's. Record in Pakistan and Sharjah - 12/12. Record in NZ, 3/7.

And 23 out of 31 games they played in 1990's.

Their overall record in ODI's during the 2000's is also far worse then Pakistan's, for what it is worth.

 

[deeps]

the pakistani team were missing their entire bowling line up, with the exception of sami in the one dayers...

 

[Nonentity]

How so? Pakistan one one world class bowler in Shoaib, and one very promising bowler in Kaneria. Sami is rubbish and the rest are unproven. England have a solid, proven 5 man bowling attack and India have a pair of spinners of very high quality and a pair of seamers that are pretty poor but not as bad as Sami. Pakistan are 5th or 6th in the world with Sri Lanka, but clearly behind Australia, England, India and South Africa.

sami-rubbish?
how come?

 

[Swervy]

Swervy,

I talked about performance, no?

Performance is something different from a win or loss. You can say that Pakistan lost the recent VB series; there is no question about that. However, it would be wrong and unfair to say that they didn't 'perform' in that series. They looked competetive enough to pose a moderate threat to the Australian team most of the time. To me, NZ side has never looked settled enough to threaten us on the sub-continental pitches. In this case they are like India, not at their best when they are playing outside home. (let us lump in sharjah with the rest of the sub-continent)

Ofcouse, if you go on a bit farther (back in the 90's) Pakistan totally owned NZ. Both in Pakistan AND NZ.

People consider Pakistan to be the second because on paper, and in reality, they have a very well balanced ODI side. Any ODI side would love to get their hands on either Afridi or Razzaq, barring maybe Australia. (And I daresay they wouldn't mind either; specially Afridi) And on occasions when they have performed, they have looked pretty settled and well on their way on the ladder of improvement. And when you add in the fire-power of Shoaib Akhtar (who will remains as a force to reckon with in ODI's for atleast a couple of years) and the relative stability of their middle-order you have a pretty solid team at your hands. (A team, which unlike many others, possesses the ability of virtually turning matches on their heads)

It might come of as cliched or arrogant, but it is Pakistan's unpredictability which makes them so dangerous - you do not know what to expect from them. Hence, they rank pretty high on most people's ODI lists, since ODI cricket isa momentus affair. (NZ fans would remember our tour in 2001. How we won the Auckland test with four debutants, 8-1 odds, captaincy spit while capsizing at Hamilton in a blink-and-you-will-miss-it affair) The aformentioned series, for me, defines Pakistan cricket.

And really, most of the ODI teams in the world are a shadow of what they were five/ten years ago.

Edit (since you seem rather keen on statistics): Pakistan has won 17 out of the 27 matches they played against NZ in 2000's. Record in Pakistan and Sharjah - 12/12. Record in NZ, 3/7.

And 23 out of 31 games they played in 1990's.

Their overall record in ODI's during the 2000's is also far worse then Pakistan's, for what it is worth.

Forget what happened in the 1990's or even 2 years ago, its irrelevent really.

You say that pakistans unpredictabilty is what makes them dangerous..i would disagree, its their unpredictability that is their downfall. They are a obviously very talented team, as they have always had, but they are always one game from disintegration....NZ are a much more reliable team IMO.

yeah Pakistan did compete in Australia, but so did WI as well..in fact there is a case to be made for the WI's to be ranked right up there with Pakistan, based on recent performance

regarding Afridi..sure on his day, when things go his way, he can be dangerous, but generally, he knoocks a boundary or two with a six in the middle and gets out..and on the whole he is pretty innocuous(sp?) with the ball

Re: razzaq..well he is a better bat than Afridi..but again, he is a bit hit and miss...and his bowling has quickly gone down the poo chute...he isnt half the bowler he was say 5 years ago.

I am sure Pakistan will get better, but it will only show if they become more consistant, which quite frankly has never been a Pakistan strong point

 

[deeps]

afridi during the 04/05 season

played 14 odis with a batting average of 39.50 and a bowling average of 29.65, picking up 20 wickets in those 14 matches...so that's over a wicket a game, not bad for a part timer

he has two 50's in the 14 matches, and a highest score of 58..so that shows his consistency, he hasn't just gone and made one big score and disappeared.

razzaqs averages are very very similar

batting avg of 39.87 and bowling avg of 35.94 again 14 matches
however razzaq has an unbeaten century to his name and only 17 wickets


both have very good figures for batsman coming in around 6 and 7 and being all rounders.

compare that to new zealands premier batsman in stephen fleming who has played 9 matches and averages 27.50.


The post from swervy, is based on the past and not present... you are thinking back 2 years at least, where afridi was very much inconsistent but as his figures show he has improved alot. His bowling is no longer weak, it is damn effective and has turned test and one day matches for pakisatn

 

[Beleg]

yeah Pakistan did compete in Australia, but so did WI as well..in fact there is a case to be made for the WI's to be ranked right up there with Pakistan, based on recent performance

You can't be serious here, can you? Do you honestly believe that West Indians competed at the level of Pakistanies in the ODI's down south? Except for two matches WI's were downright abysmal, pretty much the inverse of what Pakistan were.

regarding Afridi..sure on his day, when things go his way, he can be dangerous, but generally, he knoocks a boundary or two with a six in the middle and gets out..and on the whole he is pretty innocuous(sp?) with the ball

Innocuous with the ball? Sure, if you mean taking wickets periodically, but slowing down the run-rate or acting as a fifth/sixth bowler? I refer you against to the last VB series, and the VB series' before that and Afridi's whole bowling carrier. With an average of less than 30 and a run-rate of around 4.65 he is a very very handy fifth/sixth bowler.

As for his batting, he has shown time and again what a quickfire 30 odd for number seven and eight can do to the outset of a match. If you score a quickfire 25+ at number seven/eight then you have done your job. He is not required to occupy the crease and rotate the strike His function is different and he has proven himself quite competent at it lately. (And really, I think you are falling back on the common misconception about Afridi, just because he fails to deliver at the top doesn't automatically disqualify his worth in the lower middle-order)


Re: Razzaq, he is arguably the best hitter in the world at the moment, has proven himself far more consistent than Afridi and considering his batting position, and stats thereof one can determine his worth for himself/herself. His job is to hit, you are liable to miss once in a while. The frequency of misses determines how good you are at your job. Agree about his bowling though - still he can be used to eek out 5-6 overs. A bowling attack of Shoaib, Rana, Razzaq, Afridi, Kaneria, Malik and possibly Hafeez allows you some flexibility.


Re: NZ's reliability.

I have only seen them play against Pakistan and a couple of games against South Africa and never did they struck me as reliable. Dogged, yes. Fighters, that too. But reliable? Never. And they don't seem to possess that spunk which often causes teams to rise to the occasion and perform above their capabilities. Perhaps I have never seen the best of NZ but then again based on what I have read or heard, I somehow don't think that even at their best, they'll be able to match most other teams.

Re: Pakistan's relibility

I am a pretty cynical person but I think that loss of superstars will do much to eliminate Pakistan's apathy and help them become more reliable. Less internal squabbles + tighter reign of the board = more focus on performance than showmanship (and this process is already well underway...)

 

[Swervy]

afridi during the 04/05 season

played 14 odis with a batting average of 39.50 and a bowling average of 29.65, picking up 20 wickets in those 14 matches...so that's over a wicket a game, not bad for a part timer

he has two 50's in the 14 matches, and a highest score of 58..so that shows his consistency, he hasn't just gone and made one big score and disappeared.

razzaqs averages are very very similar

batting avg of 39.87 and bowling avg of 35.94 again 14 matches
however razzaq has an unbeaten century to his name and only 17 wickets


both have very good figures for batsman coming in around 6 and 7 and being all rounders.

compare that to new zealands premier batsman in stephen fleming who has played 9 matches and averages 27.50.


The post from swervy, is based on the past and not present... you are thinking back 2 years at least, where afridi was very much inconsistent but as his figures show he has improved alot. His bowling is no longer weak, it is damn effective and has turned test and one day matches for pakisatn

Well you appear to have been sucked in by one or two good performances by Afridi...he has indeed just had his most consistant spell of batting ever in ODI's..4 straight innings where he has scored 20 or more...wow!!!!!

The fact is, Afridi will always average in the low twenties. He isnt a player who relies on getting into form, he has no form with the bat....he either swings and hits ..or he swings and misses...he looks great when he hits it, he looks foolish when he misses.He is a purely instinctive hitter of the ball, although a lot of what he does is just premeditated slogging. A player like Afridi CANNOT be relied upon to dig his team out of trouble...more often than not he gets out very quickly.

His career has basically followed the same pattern throughout his career....gets a few runs in one or two innings, people think he has turned a corner, he then gets out to silly shots, he gets written off as a waste of space.

I will be very very surprised ifPakistans success in the future has too much to do with a resurgence of Afridi..I can think of a fair few players who are more vital to their teams success than Afridi is to pakistans.....As for his bowling...well he might take the odd wicket, but he is also prone to getting a good smacking as well...for me he is a handy bowler, not much more..I do like is speed variations though

Razzaq has a lot more to offer...he is quite simply a much better batsman...but his bowling is shot at.

 

[deeps]

i can think of quiet a few matches hes turned during the past year with his hitting.... one game was in the VB series game against australia where he came out and made 30 off 13 or something and swung the match towards pakistans' way.

Another i remember is he made a really quick 25+ score against india where india were cruising to victory. He hit pathan around the park for one over and pakistan got home comfortably.... that is his job and he has been doing it well

You are still thinking back when he was not as successful. He made consisten 30's in the VB series against the aussies as well.

Sure you may not like his style of play but look at his RECENT figures and tell me what's wrong with them... as someone mentioned earlier, his job is NOT to occupy the crease, or make 50's..sure if he makes a 50, well done, but they would take a quick 30 anyday.

 

[Swervy]

i can think of quiet a few matches hes turned during the past year with his hitting.... one game was in the VB series game against australia where he came out and made 30 off 13 or something and swung the match towards pakistans' way.

Another i remember is he made a really quick 25+ score against india where india were cruising to victory. He hit pathan around the park for one over and pakistan got home comfortably.... that is his job and he has been doing it well

You are still thinking back when he was not as successful. He made consisten 30's in the VB series against the aussies as well.

Sure you may not like his style of play but look at his RECENT figures and tell me what's wrong with them... as someone mentioned earlier, his job is NOT to occupy the crease, or make 50's..sure if he makes a 50, well done, but they would take a quick 30 anyday.

hey..I love watching him play..but I am not going to all of a sudden worship the ground he walks on coz he connected with a few 6's in Australia with the exact same shots that he missed only a few games before...he is a chancer, sometimes he comes off, mostly he doesnt. I know the expectations are different for lower order batsmen, but that still doesnt get away from the fact that yuo do quite often need to be fairly sensible down the order. Afridis batting is as reliable as something really not too reliable..its a lottery....whether he makes a 0 or a 30, whether the next ball goes for 4 or he is out...

The way he plays he WILL fail more often than not.

Compare that to a player like Kemp for SA(proper batting vs England, not just hoping for the best like Afridi), or Flintoff.....or Cairns..cairns isnt a slogger, he is a good batsman, he can be relied upon if his team are in trouble a lot more than Afridi..and its a player like that that willhelp win games more.

 

[Swervy]

Innocuous with the ball? Sure, if you mean taking wickets periodically, but slowing down the run-rate or acting as a fifth/sixth bowler? I refer you against to the last VB series, and the VB series' before that and Afridi's whole bowling carrier. With an average of less than 30 and a run-rate of around 4.65 he is a very very handy fifth/sixth bowler.

are we talking about the same guy.. Afridi has only just got his aearge below 40 with the ball, largely thanks to a few good performances vs Holland, and Kenya and Zimbabwe...

good players will in general, have no worries playing Afridi...as I say he is useful, nothing more....and his 4.6 rpo is probably more due to where he bowls during an innings (ie in the nice safe overs between 20-and 40) than his bowling prowess.

 

[deeps]

tendulkar 3 times in this series.......... no problmes?

 

[Swervy]

tendulkar 3 times in this series.......... no problmes?

note the 'in general' bit

 

[deeps]

he got sehwag ganguly (meant to be good against spin) tendulkar and heaps of others..... your argument doesnt cut it.. afridi picked up vital wickets at vital time's during the last test..

i'm not sayin on the basis of one series either. he played the last test against aus as well, and his bowling wasn't anything special but he kept it tight, and he made 45 before he was run out.

 

[Swervy]

he got sehwag ganguly (meant to be good against spin) tendulkar and heaps of others..... your argument doesnt cut it.. afridi picked up vital wickets at vital time's during the last test..

i'm not sayin on the basis of one series either. he played the last test against aus as well, and his bowling wasn't anything special but he kept it tight, and he made 45 before he was run out.

your arguement is going all over the place..are we talking tests or ODI's.

My point is that he isnt reliable enough to pose that much of a threat over a longish period of time....good bowlers will tend to finish him off, good batsmen will tend to play him fairly easily

Yeah his 45 was a nice little knock....but when your team is 100 runs behind with 6 wickets left, is it really what you want..45 runs that took an hour to make and he gets out (admittedly run out, but so what) still 30 runs behind..and what did he do in the first innings, comes in at 240 for 4 and is out at 260 for 6, 3 overs later, where is the contribution..not only that, he got drilled on a turner, 113 runs no wickets in 20 odd overs.

Anyway, the guy isnt suited to tests, so why talk about it.

 

[deeps]

well i took the statement generally as "his bowling won't trouble a good batsman" so i took it as tests and odis, didn't seem to make a difference


his bowlin has improved alot as well, and i don't know if you actually watched the tests vs pakistan, or the one dayers vs aus and WI's, but i watchted alot of them, and it's very good stuff he bowls...

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

 

[Swervy]

well i took the statement generally as "his bowling won't trouble a good batsman" so i took it as tests and odis, didn't seem to make a difference


his bowlin has improved alot as well, and i don't know if you actually watched the tests vs pakistan, or the one dayers vs aus and WI's, but i watchted alot of them, and it's very good stuff he bowls...

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

yeah I did watch quite a bit of the tests and the odi's, and to be honest, Afridi's play didnt surprise me....he has always played at the same level.....some days he comes off, some days he doesnt, but its no basis on which to say Pakistan are the second best one day team in the world because they have Afridi or whatever was mentioned earlier on....Pakistans problem is lack of consistancy, aplayer like Afridi will do nothing to halt pakistans inconsistancy..as I say, whether he performs or not is just a lottery

 

[Blaze]

Beleg you are totally out of your depth and talking absolute biased rubbish.

NZ lost to Pakistan 5-0 because all of the first choice players made themselves unavaliable because of bomb scares etc so Pakistan were playing NZ A

NZ are a consistant outfit unlike the Pakistanies. You would think the Pakistan cricket team have bipolar or something. Up one minute, down the next.

NZ had a better winning % in ODI's than even Australia and your claim about them not being able to win in the subcontinent simply isn't valid because since John Bracewell took over the reigns as coach and we started playing decent ODI cricket we have played in the sub continent only once.. against Bangladesh which means very little.

Also NZ won a ODI tournament a couple of years back in the sub continent involving Pakistan and Sri Lanka did they not?

 

[Zinzan]

There is no way in the world that the current Pakistani outfit (at full avalable strength) is 2nd in the test cricket.

In the ODI's however, I think it is a close call between NZ and Pakistan for the second place. On their day Pakistan look like beating everyone, including Australia, though these days are far and few inbetween. The fact that they have probably the best lower middle-order in the world and handy ODI allrounders covers for their fast-bowling woes and puts them a notch above teams like Sri-Lanka and South Africa. Now only if they can find a settled and consistent opening pair... (which by the way was the main difference between AUS and Pakistan in the recent VB finals)

NZ cannot perform in Pakistan/Sharjah/SL if their life depended on it. Specially in the ODI's.

New Zealand won the last 3 way tournament they played in Sharjah with Sri lanka and Pakistan in 2003.

 

[Beleg]

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?

NZ are a consistant outfit unlike the Pakistanies. You would think the Pakistan cricket team have bipolar or something. Up one minute, down the next.

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.