***Official*** Pakistan in England

tooextracool said:

Strauss was thoroughly worked out by Australia and while he did score 2 hundreds, one of which was really in a dead innings

Click to expand...

Which one was that then?

tooextracool said:

I dont think Giles will be fit, so i think Panesar will play.Unless we can unearth a spinner who can bat before the Ashes, im afraid the lower order will be pretty weak, because our best bowlers dont seem to be too handy when it comes to holding a bat.

Click to expand...

Hence Plunkett, I guess, although he's looking less like a number 8 with every passing test. But I really can't se us going in with Hoggard at 8 followed by Harmison, Anderson & Panesar. It's a real shame that Dawson hasn't come on like he should. Or Swann, although tbf, I don't honestly know how good or otherwise he is. He's always struck me as an underachiever, although I may be unfair in that respect.
Unless Aus serve up a series of dustbowls, I'd be very tempted to play Fred at 7 followed by the keeper and 3 quicks, supported by 15 overs a day from various combinations of Collingwood, KP & Tresco to give the main guys a rest. I know conventional wisdom is you need a good spinner in Aus, but surely not if it means your last 5 wickets going for less than 20 all the time. And I seem to recall SA doing well enough over there in the 90's without a decent twirler, not to mention WI before them.

tooextracool said:

Butcher has had plenty of temperamental issues, his failures against Australia have always been poor stroke, ridiculous run out or something along this lines. For me Butcher played one of the best Aussie attacks in 2001,while Strauss played the worst. If he was having problems playing Warne, Warne, Warne and Lee then i cant see him succeeding against Warne, Gillespie,Mcgrath and Lee.

Click to expand...

I tend to put Butcher's Headingley knock in the same category as Randall's 174 in the Centenary Test. Unquestionably wonderful, but in no way representative. Just one of those days when everything didn't just click but kept clicking for 5 hours or so. Which was very unusual for Butch, who consistently made attractive 40's but all too infrequently went on with it. After my last post, I had a look at his 2 series in Aus. He seems to like Brisbane and then fall away badly, and there isn't much evidence that he Aus haven't worked him out. I'd still be happy to have him in the squad though, in case one of the 1st choice top 3 gets injured or whatever. I think you're a bit unfair on Strauss, if only because both of his tons also came off McGrath, albeit a not 100% fit one at OT. And who is he likely to face this winter anyway?

marc71178 said:

Which one was that then?

Click to expand...

the one at OT. for more than half the innings Australia were focussing on slowing the run scoring as opposed to trying to get him out. As a result there were less close in fielders. nor was there any pressure on him to score in that game either

wpdavid said:

Hence Plunkett, I guess, although he's looking less like a number 8 with every passing test. But I really can't se us going in with Hoggard at 8 followed by Harmison, Anderson & Panesar. It's a real shame that Dawson hasn't come on like he should. Or Swann, although tbf, I don't honestly know how good or otherwise he is. He's always struck me as an underachiever, although I may be unfair in that respect.
Unless Aus serve up a series of dustbowls, I'd be very tempted to play Fred at 7 followed by the keeper and 3 quicks, supported by 15 overs a day from various combinations of Collingwood, KP & Tresco to give the main guys a rest. I know conventional wisdom is you need a good spinner in Aus, but surely not if it means your last 5 wickets going for less than 20 all the time. And I seem to recall SA doing well enough over there in the 90's without a decent twirler, not to mention WI before them.

Click to expand...

Logically if you wanted someone who could bat at 8, you're better off going in with a specialist batsman than to have someone who cant bat or bowl at 8. I think its far more important to pick your best 4 bowlers than to pick 3 bowlers and one rubbish one simply because he can bat. i cant see us being successful with just 4 pace bowlers, largely because one or 2 of them are bound to have bad days, and harmison and anderson are likely to do so quite often, and also be completely useless when they do so. This would only add further pressure to Flintoff who has it is is already bowling well below pace. Even in the last Ashes series, no matter how much you criticise Giles for his performance, he provided some well needed resting time for the other 4 bowlers, holding up one end so that the others are refreshed(and how often did they take wickets in the first overs of their spell?)

wpdavid said:

I tend to put Butcher's Headingley knock in the same category as Randall's 174 in the Centenary Test. Unquestionably wonderful, but in no way representative. Just one of those days when everything didn't just click but kept clicking for 5 hours or so. Which was very unusual for Butch, who consistently made attractive 40's but all too infrequently went on with it. After my last post, I had a look at his 2 series in Aus. He seems to like Brisbane and then fall away badly, and there isn't much evidence that he Aus haven't worked him out. I'd still be happy to have him in the squad though, in case one of the 1st choice top 3 gets injured or whatever. I think you're a bit unfair on Strauss, if only because both of his tons also came off McGrath, albeit a not 100% fit one at OT. And who is he likely to face this winter anyway?

Click to expand...

Cant say that the Mcgrath at the Oval was 100% fit either. Strauss got lucky in that series IMO, he didnt inspire confidence whatsoever and his career has only gone downhill since then. His technique show several flaws, most notably his bat coming down at an angle which causes him to inside edge often. Hes also extremely fallible to the inswinger, and as such most bowlers who've pitched it up to him have severely restricted his run scoring and caused him to flash at wide deliveries or deliveries that are not quite there to cut. I dont think he should be dropped permanently, but when we have such rich batting talent as backup i dont see why someone whos failed continuously(bar that one hundred in india) for a year.i think the England selectors need to start getting tough, because several players-pietersen, strauss, seem to be resting on their laurels from the Ashes and think that they cant be dropped because of that. Strauss might yet make my Ashes side if he goes back into domestic cricket, works on his technique and scores some runs before this november.
With regards to Butcher, he might not be a long term replacement, but what is extremely extremely crucial is that he is a PROVEN test match batsman. the middle order, incase you havent noticed is what cost us the series in pakistan, nearly cost us the series in india, and caused us to draw with SL. at the end of the day, we cannot simply continue picking the same starting XIs over and over again in the hope that the results will change.
edit:i do see your point about butcher and his inability to carry on after a start, and its one thing that has frustrated me over the years, because hes capable of being the best batsman in England if he put his mind into it. its not that he is incapable of grafting, its the fact that his mind wanders after he does all the hard work and gets to 50 and ends up throwing it all away. If Thorpe were still in the side, i wouldnt even consider having Butcher in there, but the only reason i choose to do so is that id be much more confident going in with proven test players than to have a batting card with Strauss, Cook, Pietersen and Collingwood, all of whom are unproven quantities at the test match level.

tooextracool said:

the one at OT. for more than half the innings Australia were focussing on slowing the run scoring as opposed to trying to get him out. As a result there were less close in fielders. nor was there any pressure on him to score in that game either

Click to expand...

If England are looking for quick runs, how is there no pressure on him to score?

tooextracool said:

Logically if you wanted someone who could bat at 8, you're better off going in with a specialist batsman than to have someone who cant bat or bowl at 8. I think its far more important to pick your best 4 bowlers than to pick 3 bowlers and one rubbish one simply because he can bat. i cant see us being successful with just 4 pace bowlers, largely because one or 2 of them are bound to have bad days, and harmison and anderson are likely to do so quite often, and also be completely useless when they do so. This would only add further pressure to Flintoff who has it is is already bowling well below pace. Even in the last Ashes series, no matter how much you criticise Giles for his performance, he provided some well needed resting time for the other 4 bowlers, holding up one end so that the others are refreshed(and how often did they take wickets in the first overs of their spell?)

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree about Giles' role & my point about playing 4 bowlers this winter is only if he isn't fit. And I see your point about harmy & co too. I think they'd just have to bowl through it otherwise, as you say, Fred' heading for the knackers yard by the time he's 30. But going back to my previous post, if Giles isn't available, what would your lower order for the Ashes be?

wpdavid said:

Hence Plunkett, I guess, although he's looking less like a number 8 with every passing test. But I really can't se us going in with Hoggard at 8 followed by Harmison, Anderson & Panesar. It's a real shame that Dawson hasn't come on like he should. Or Swann, although tbf, I don't honestly know how good or otherwise he is. He's always struck me as an underachiever, although I may be unfair in that respect.
Unless Aus serve up a series of dustbowls, I'd be very tempted to play Fred at 7 followed by the keeper and 3 quicks, supported by 15 overs a day from various combinations of Collingwood, KP & Tresco to give the main guys a rest.

Click to expand...

I agree that batting depth is more important than including 1 extra average bowler who is probably going to take overs away from better bowlers.

I personnaly would bat Flintoff at 6 with Collingwood at 7 and the keeper at 8. Few people appreciate how valuable 1 extra partnership between recognised batsmen can be.

wpdavid said:

And I seem to recall SA doing well enough over there in the 90's without a decent twirler, not to mention WI before them.

Click to expand...

Ahem, in 11 tests in Australia since readmission, South Africa have won....1 and they have not beaten Aus in Aus in a game for over 12 1/2 years.

Goughy said:

Ahem, in 11 tests in Australia since readmission, South Africa have won....1 and they have not beaten Aus in Aus in a game for over 12 1/2 years.

Click to expand...

Oh OK. Didn't they draw a series 1-1 when Donald & DeVilliers were in their pomp? I know they've been roundly thrashed in their last 2 series in Aus but I thought they held their own when they still had a decent pace attack.

wpdavid said:

Oh OK. Didn't they draw a series 1-1 when Donald & DeVilliers were in their pomp? I know they've been roundly thrashed in their last 2 series in Aus but I thought they held their own when they still had a decent pace attack.

Click to expand...

They drew that series and the game they won was on the back of DeVilliers destroying Aus. 2nd innings.

However, cant read much into the exploits of a team that have a worse record (in terms of % of games won) in Australia than England in recent times.

Goughy said:

They drew that series and the game they won was on the back of DeVilliers destroying Aus. 2nd innings.

However, cant read much into the exploits of a team that have a worse record (in terms of % of games won) in Australia than England in recent times.

Click to expand...

I've had a look at Cricinfo now. After drawing 1-1 in 1993/4 they went down 1-0 in 1997/98when they weren't so far away from levelling the series in the final test. AFAICS their largely pace attack did well enough, but they sometimes games because their batters couldn't handle Warne and, on occasion, McGill.

I reckon there's lessons to be learnt there. Losing 2 out of 6 is no disgrace, and we all know about the importance of runs from the lower order in achieving that sort of ratio. Are Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff & Jones/Anderson as good a combination as the 90's SA attack? On a good day, I'd say. Maybe playing only 4 of them would focus their minds a bit. At present, if Harmy or Hoggard is out of sorts, there's a feeling that it doesn't matter because there's 4 others. The other proviso is that the "fill-in" bowlers understand what they're trying to do rather than just turn their arms & hope for the best. I don't think that should be beyond them.

As I said previously, none of this is relevant if Giles is fit. However, if he isn't then I agree with TEC that the lineup we've seen this summer is a recipe for disaster and a different strategy will be needed.

EDIT
Of course, I should have added that 4 bowlers doesn't automatically exclude a spinner if conditions obviously suit. It just means we are less able to carry any of our quicks if they're having an off-day.

marc71178 said:

If England are looking for quick runs, how is there no pressure on him to score?

Click to expand...

because by and large when a team is looking for quick runs its usually accepted for players to sacrifice their wicket in an attempt to push the scoring along, simply because they tried.

wpdavid said:

Absolutely agree about Giles' role & my point about playing 4 bowlers this winter is only if he isn't fit. And I see your point about harmy & co too. I think they'd just have to bowl through it otherwise, as you say, Fred' heading for the knackers yard by the time he's 30. But going back to my previous post, if Giles isn't available, what would your lower order for the Ashes be?

Click to expand...

i cannot answer that question without a complete knowledge of English domestic cricket. Assuming that Giles isnt fit, and our options include either Liam Plunkett at 8 or Collingwood at 7, i would go for Collingwood at 7, especially with what will be a largely uncertain middle order.

wpdavid said:

I reckon there's lessons to be learnt there. Losing 2 out of 6 is no disgrace, and we all know about the importance of runs from the lower order in achieving that sort of ratio. Are Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff & Jones/Anderson as good a combination as the 90's SA attack? On a good day, I'd say. Maybe playing only 4 of them would focus their minds a bit. At present, if Harmy or Hoggard is out of sorts, there's a feeling that it doesn't matter because there's 4 others. The other proviso is that the "fill-in" bowlers understand what they're trying to do rather than just turn their arms & hope for the best. I don't think that should be beyond them.

Click to expand...

It might also be worth it if some of our part time bowlers worked on their bowling a little bit. If butcher were to play, hes certainly a more than useful part time medium pacer, but the likes of Pietersen and Trescothick havent bowled in ages.

adharcric said:

Any chance Butt and Farhat will open and Malik gets left out?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Malik forms teh core of Pak batting lineup now. The guy has put his hand up and agreed to play at a spot which he really isn't suited for and is improving. This guy's all hard work and dedication, and Inzy and Bob love him. Unless something unusual happens, I see him open in all the test matches. For the 1st one, I think Malik n Farhat shd go. I'm not a big Farhat fan but you c ant argue against a guy in good form, can u?

a10khan said:

Nope.

Malik forms teh core of Pak batting lineup now. The guy has put his hand up and agreed to play at a spot which he really isn't suited for and is improving. This guy's all hard work and dedication, and Inzy and Bob love him. Unless something unusual happens, I see him open in all the test matches. For the 1st one, I think Malik n Farhat shd go. I'm not a big Farhat fan but you c ant argue against a guy in good form, can u?

Click to expand...

Well i think it will be a revolving door with both Farhat and Butt alternating (depending on who's in form) and Malik secure on the other end. I wish Pak can get some stability on the opening front. I hope after this series either Farhat or Butt secure the position for themselves for good.

a10khan said:

Nope.

For the 1st one, I think Malik n Farhat shd go. I'm not a big Farhat fan but you c ant argue against a guy in good form, can u?

Click to expand...

Farhat also has an advantage over Salman Butt of being a very useful leg spinner and from what I can gather Bob Woolmer has been very impressed with his progression as a bowler. As a batter there is not much of a difference between him and Salman both score in pretty much the same areas and both players have the same vulnerability of getting caught outside off stump playing expansive drives but Farhat does offer more to the team.

tooextracool said:

It might also be worth it if some of our part time bowlers worked on their bowling a little bit. If butcher were to play, hes certainly a more than useful part time medium pacer, but the likes of Pietersen and Trescothick havent bowled in ages.

Click to expand...

Totally agree - when you look at the way SA and even Aus have got some overs out of their batsmen over the years, there's a lesson to be learnt there. Of course, Collingwood's more than capable of doing that anyway, so I agree with your previous post about having him in the top 7. I'd probably have him above Fred, but I guess that's a realtively minor detail.

TT Boy said:

Farhat also has an advantage over Salman Butt of being a very useful leg spinner and from what I can gather Bob Woolmer has been very impressed with his progression as a bowler. As a batter there is not much of a difference between him and Salman both score in pretty much the same areas and both players have the same vulnerability of getting caught outside off stump playing expansive drives but Farhat does offer more to the team.

Click to expand...

Salman though has a better temperament, but he plays away from the body a little too much for my liking, as does Farhat. But Farhat is more explosive. I'm not sure, the verdict is out. I guess we'll see after the next couple series where they stand. Farhat is indeed a useful spinner. I am surprised Pak management found that out that late, he was always handy in the domestic game.

Pak will be well advised to go in with 4 frontline bowlers + Abdul Razzaq rather then just 3. This will mean Afridi will have to sit out, whose done quite well in the last few tests. But I think its a move they'll need to make.