Australia v Pakistan 1st Test - Perth

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Rachael

What'syour priorities for this first Test?

In Woolmer's place, mine would be (in order of importance)

1. Make the Test last at least to day 4.
2. Avoid an innings defeat.

I think I'd gamble on avoiding the follow on.. or on the Aussies not enforcing the follow on... and put the Aussies in.

Well, Rachael, they did all that. But a defeat by 491 runs in the end: is that a success by your criteria or not? (Not trying to wind you up here, just interested to hear your post match views. I'd have trouble seeing it as a success myself.)

[Zainub]

Australia, not us, are responsible for all that OF. We didn't lose by an innings because they didn't enforce the follow on, and the match went into day 4 only because they wanted to give their batters some practice on day 3. Otherwise we should have lost this match by an innings and 130 jest before lunch on day 3.

In my opinion, the bowling is the only positive we can take out of this match, Shoaib bowled very well through out, and was always a threat for the Aussies. Sami never stopped trying, and both his and Shoaib's batting on Day 2, was a sign that the two are now learning to take responsibility. People will say things about Razzaq's bowling, but even then he managed to pick up 3 wickets in the test...Kaneria impressed everyone with his temprement... Mohammad Khalil didn't pick up any wickets but in the first innings he bowled well, and might have been unlucky to not have picked up a few, without being spectacular he did alright....Generally we toiled well with the ball, we put up a fight, and didn't disgrace our selves, unlike the batsmen, who repeated the same mistakes they had had been making all along, even in the warm up matches, and showed very little responisbility and courage in the face of adversity. No one, I repeat, no one, held up his hand, to say I'll do it. Everyone was poor. And unless we can fix that in time for the next test, where things will be batting wise slightly less demanding as Perth, Australia will continue to dominate.

I'm so disapointed at our batting, I don't mind defeats, as long as though we learn from them, but it most annoying when the team seems to be making the same mistakes so many time. I know it is tough ask for many of these younger players to suddenly adjust to different conditions, but in the first innings, most of our dimissals, we down to poor batting, and the conditions had little to do with that.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Occasional Fan

Well, Rachael, they did all that. But a defeat by 491 runs in the end: is that a success by your criteria or not? (Not trying to wind you up here, just interested to hear your post match views. I'd have trouble seeing it as a success myself.)

I think Woolmer will be happy enough tonight.. but unlike Zainub, I think he'll be as worried about the bowling as by the batting as the batting, whilst pretty ordinary, in no way reflected what the team has to offer (and I'm sure he reckons he can get that up to speed in due course).. whereas the bowling was pretty much everything this attack had to offer and still looked ordinary (leaving him desperately hoping that the two missing seamers have more to offer).

It's easy to get carred away with the bizarre session that started off the match: Lunch: Australia 72/4 (Langer 22*, Clarke 1*, 25 overs) became 5-78 when Clarke went in the 26.4 ov.. but that needs to be seen as what it was: an abberation. Discount that abberation and look at the match:

Langer + minor support (2 hours from Gilchrist, an hour and a half from Gillespie, half an hour from Warne) put on 303 / 5.

The entire Pakistan team made 179

Three out of the Aussie top 4 scored 90+, 270 wre posted for the loss of just 2 wickets

The entire Pakistan side all out for 72

Sure, the batting was not good enough.. but that was expected. The real shock is that with a fully fit Akhtar, Sami, Razzaq and Kaneria, plus an extra bowler in Khalil (who would not have played had Woolmer settled on a 4 man attack)... saw the Aussies take the game away from them (post 300+) in just 2 sessions (actually 64 overs).

I don't care how well the Pakistan team batted: if you let the opposition score at 150 a session in the first innings you've lost the game. That's what Pakistan did. Even if the Pakistan team then batted beautifully, scoring at 3 an over for 5 sessions, and posting 450+... they would have been stuffed in this match.

Count the sessions:

Aussie first innings: 90.5 overs = 3 sessions.

A theoretical Pakistan innings of 450 in 5 sessions: all out by lunch on day 3.

The Aussie second innings: 85.2 overs = < 3 sessions.

That scenario would have seen Australia build a lead of 292 for the loss of just 5 wickets with 5 sessions remaining on a pitch that would be getting increasingly tough: they might have delayed their declaration until just before tea... leaving Pak 350-400 in 4 and a bit sessions.

Pakistan would STILL have been in real trouble.

The bottom line remains that Pakistan's bowlers showed themselves to be incapable of making the Aussies really work for their runs. There wil be times when the opposition's last 5 wickets DO contribute 303 runs.. but at the very least you need to make sure that takes them the better part of 4 sessions. Equally, there will be times when the opposition batsmen are batting you out of the game and you can't rip them out: there's no shame in seeing them reach 361/5 (it happens)... but you DO need to make sure that takes them 4 sessions.

Had the bowlers contained the Aussie batsmen to even 3 an over (not that special) it would have taken the Aussies an extra DAY to post that mammoth total. The 1st Pakistan innings would not have begun until the 2nd afternoon. The 2nd Aussie innings would have lasted until tea on day 4.

In that position the batsmen are under a lot less pressure: 4 sessions to save a Test and keep a series alive is a credible target. When you have to start your final innings on day 3 and bat for more than 6 sessions even the greatest side is likely to fold under the pressure!

ps. further thoughts at http://www.world-a-team.com/showthre...9132#post29132

[Zainub]

Rachael,

A lot has been said about our back up bowling, but I thought we did ok. At least we can say we tried our best, and gave it a shot, unlike our batsmen our bowler's weren't guilty of self destruction, we bowled all right, Langer just batted too well. He had an answer for everything we tried, but we did try...as opposed to the batsmen who didn't utilise all their potentials, and we didn't have any answers to any questions asked by Australia's bowlers, instead we played the game into their hands by gifting them our wickets. ...we didn't gift runs, they just earned them via good batting...although we did gift wickets by poor shot selection...

Batting I repeat is our biggest concern right now. Bowling is not perfect, but it's much more promising than the batting right now...especially when you consider that our best batsman has been getting out bowled in all his last three proper innings

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

A lot has been said about our back up bowling, but [...] Langer just batted too well [...] we didn't gift runs, they just earned them via good batting...although we did gift wickets by poor shot selection...

I disagree entirely.

Langer was allowed to bat well: he isn't a player to hit a ball that's not there to be hit... and it wasn't just the back-up bowlers who gave him too many balls to hit.

As I said: there's no point looking to take wickets (in the hope of winning a match) if you at the same time concede runs (thereby losing the match). The game, especially in Australia, is all about pressure, built by making batsmen work for their runs, released by making life easy for them.

At this level momentum is critical.. and whatever Pakistan had at the end of the first session had gone by the end of the second sesion and been reversed by the end of the third session. By then, the Aussies knew they were going to win.

It's different when your strongest suit is your batting, as the NZ side is: they can get carted when bowling and still feel they can win. When you reckon your strongest suit is your bowling and you can't even compete in every sesion on that front... it's downhil all the way.

Sure, there are batting issues.. but they aren't any more serious than the bowling issues: Pakistan have got one Test class batsman (Inzi) and on his day, one Test class bowler (Akhtar, when he's up for it). The rest is all just promise.. and that will take at least 2-3 years to sort out.

[Zainub]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Pakistan have got one Test class batsman (Inzi) and on his day, one Test class bowler (Akhtar, when he's up for it). The rest is all just promise.. and that will take at least 2-3 years to sort out.

There is more promise in the bowling than there is in the batting.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

There is more promise in the bowling than there is in the batting.

There's promise in both, really... it's just that players with "promise" are being thrust into action out of their depth and with a focus on short term impact rather than medium and long term greatness.

e.g. both Sami and Razzaq should still be playing domestic cricket (preferably NOT in Pakistan). Both should be learning the trade, bowling with senior pros like Bicknell, Caddick, Gough, Kasprowicz or Vaas and focussing on being able to really pull their weight when the International call comes. Instead they are playing out of their depth, focussing on what they can get by with (bowling fast) rather than what they have to master (control, variation, lateral movement).

Similar arguments could be made for the batsmen like Butt: they are all 3-4 years away from being the finished article.. and in the case of the strokeplayers they are being pressured into throwing their bat in the HOPE of runs because they haven't even begun to learn to dig in and back themselves to build a long, controlled innings.

It tok Flintoff 5-6 years to get the hang of Test match batting, and Test match bowling for that matter. He's an English player who was thrown in out of is depth and he consistently let the side down (understandably) as he worked out what he needed to be doing. Why expect the youngsters in Pakistan to master the crafts any more quickly?

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

Looks like ern was right, Mcgrath has gone right if the boil !!