Batting to No10

[Wiljoy]

Originally Posted by Mongoose

New Zealand have had some pretty strong line ups down the order. OK, so the top 7 weren't as strong as Australia are now, but they've had Cairns and McCullum down at 9, and am I right in thinking Richardson was a no.10 before deciding he wanted to be an opener?

Wilfred Rhodes played10 or 11 for Yorkshire,and he has also opened the batting for England,(not as a night watchman either

[Wiljoy]

Originally Posted by Lemming

I imagine Pakistan must have bowled poorly to gift the Australian tail so many runs. Warne and Gillespie can bat a lttle for a tailender but I was surprised to look at the scores and find McGrath getting a 50. Surely if Pakistan had bowled discipled he wouldn't have had it so easy.

IMHO Pakistans attack is more aggressive than England's

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Wiljoy

IMHO Pakistans attack is more aggressive than England's

Are you trying to make a constructive argument here? Pakistan's attack in the Aussie series was massively depleted.. pretty much second string... and no one could seriously dispute that they did, as Lemming implied, bowl "pretty poorly" to let the Aussie tail get so many runs (though McGrath got his 61 against NZ not Pakistan).

More aggressive? Who's aggressive? and what has that got to do with the price of cheese anyway? Akhtar's competent and can be hotile.. but isn't really in the frame as he's no longer part of the squad. OF the rest of the seamers.. what really matters is that none are anything like as good as Hoggard or even Flintoff - they aren't actually good enough to be genuinely hostile!

[Zainub]

I can't speak for Wiljoy but it might be a possibility that by agressive he is reffering to pace - Sami can bowl up in the 90s and Akhtar we all know (cliche comping up) is 'one of the fastest bowlers' in the world - some people associate quick bowling with aggression.

England certainly do have a much more consistent attack at the moment, I would argue we might potentially have the more talented of the the two attacks but England's pacemen have won many more matches for their side in recent times (last 12 months say) then have Pakistan, and talent counts for less against affectiveness.

I would also remind those who believe we bowled "quite poorly" in Australia, that some of those tail end partnerships (in fact all of those) featured big score by top order players - it wasn't like we were allowing mesers Dizzy, Pigoen and Casper to score 50s and so on, but rather they were just involved in big partnerships with the likes of Langer, Gilchrist and Martyn (all of whom let's give credit can bat very well with the tail).

And also, for those who can't remember, we did also beat Australia once in the one-day match at Perth prior to the finals in which Abdul Razzaq was man of the match with 4 wickets and an unbeaten innings to see Pakistan through to a 2 or 3 or 4 wicket win. And even though Australia went on to win the finals that followed 2-0, in both games our bowlers had done exteremely well to restrict them to score of 230 odd on good batting pitches.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

Akhtar we all know (cliche comping up) is 'one of the fastest bowlers' in the world.

I think its fair to say he is the fastest and has been since his debut. Does not imply he is any good though, of course!

[Zainub]

I do actually think he is pretty good - just that he doesn't stay good always - blows hot and cold a lot. And gets injuired too often for anyone's (including his own one would presume) liking.