-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Pakistan in England
- Thread starter James
- Start date
tooextracool
International Coach
i mean that the only leg spinner in world cricket today that doesnt bowl the googly regularly is shane warne. Therefore the googly is expected to feature in the armoury of every wrist spinner in international cricket and a bowler who can bowl the googly cannot be considered as unorthodox(as was suggested).Sanz said:
JBH001
International Regular
I fail to see your point.tooextracool said:
Numbers have little to do with orthodoxy when it comes to a basic function/paradigm.
If it all comes down to deliveries bowled then the fact that a leggie who is able to bowl a flipper is unorthodox, whilst most leggies who aren't able to bowl a flipper are suddenly orthodox leg spinners. A ludicrous argument.
(Also I thought Warne was able to bowl the googly, lost it, and seems to have - maybe - regained the ability again. However, he does not bowl the googly well)
Look at it this way, before Murali perfected the doosra was he an orthodox off spinner?
No, he was an unorthodox off spinner because he spun his stock ball with his wrist and fingers - not solely with his index finger. Thats where the argument lies - in defining the basics of the standard functional delivery of the bowler.
The doosra has nothing to do with it at all. Monty being unable to bowl the doosra does not make him orthodox, rather it is the fact that he delivers his stock ball mainly with his index finger that makes him an orthodox finger spinner.
Last edited:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Had to be England for the sheer fact that they've beaten Australia AND Pakistan. Pakistan may have beaten England, but they haven't got anywhere near to beating Australia.
England would be #2, but until this series they've still been pretty disappointing since the Ashes. The drawn series vs. India was solid, but Pakistan and SL were poor.
England would be #2, but until this series they've still been pretty disappointing since the Ashes. The drawn series vs. India was solid, but Pakistan and SL were poor.
Xuhaib
International Coach
Yeah for beating an understrength Pakistan team.Swervy said:
We got smashed at your backyard but you got smashed at our backyard. England may have beaten Aus but they drew with Ind and SL, Pakistan defeated both Ind and SL so actually the result is not that clear cut really.
Swervy
International Captain
Xuhaib said:
I am Australian by the way.
I would have said that England could really be considered to be at full strength through the entire summer to be honest...and there is no way you can say an England team without Flintoff is full strength..so an understrength pakistan playes an understrength England, and my guess is that the gap between the two teams would be stretched further in Englands favour if both teams were at full strength.
Remember that Pakistan only really completely outplayed England in one test (Lahore) in Pakistan...England have by and large looked the superior team (bar Yousuf in the Lords test, and the Younis/Yousuf partnership in the last test) by quite some distance throughout this current series.
Sure the Sri lanka series was a huge disapointment for England, but again, on the whole England were probably the better team throughout the the majority of the series, but failed to nail that first test, so in fact they were really a dropped catch or two from being 2-0 up going into the final test.
England have done plenty of things that pakistan havent in the last couple of years, Pakistan couldnt win the series in West Indies, England mauled them in the carribean, Pakistan have yet to prove that they can beat South Africa in South Africa, something England have managed...England have beaten and in general outplayed Australia, Pakistan certainly havent done that.
Anyway, I see what you mean, but going beyond the actual results (which I would say England have an edge on anyway), if you look at the quality of play over the last couple of years, England have been clearly the better team of the two IMO
Swervy
International Captain
I am not talking about quality of the players, I am talking about the quality of the actual PLAY itself...I dont think a full strength England team is necessarily that much more talented than a Pakistan full strength team (infact it probably isnt), but there is no doubt that England in general have played better cricket long term than Pakistan have...hence them being the better teamXuhaib said:
Just to go off the results, in the last 30 tests both teams have played:
England W16 L6 Runs per wicket batting 38.7 Runs per wicket bowling 30.7
Pakistan W12 L10 36.2 / 37.0
Even if you cut it down to last 20 tests:
Pakistan W7 L7 37.4/38.9
England W8 L5 36.8/30.7
Last edited:
Xuhaib
International Coach
2 of those last 8 wins for England are against Bangladesh and you have to remember Pakistan played Australia in Aus while England played them at home. I know there are no ifs and buts in cricket but if Aus would have played Pak in pak last winter it would have been a highly entertaining series with 1-1 being the most likely result.Swervy said:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
You mention this a lot. but that doesn't mean you don't have a bias towards England though. I think the fact that you have to mention it a lot shows this, that and the fact that you live there obviously.Swervy said:
Mind you I agree with you in this case, England are the 2nd best team in the world.