Shoaib Akhtar and team ethics

[fair_&_balance]

Originally Posted by Rachael

How's Akhtar measure up on that scale?

Zilch ..In last one year..

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Darren Gough always reckoned that if he hadn't taken a wicket within the first 2 overs with the new ball he'd "failed": he might do Ok later in the spelll.. or even later in the innings.. as a partnership breaker.. but he reckoned the new ball bowler was there for what he could do in just 12 deliveries - none of which should be wasted, none of which should allow the batsman an easy "sighter", and every one of which should at least have the batsman wondering whether he had to play.

How's Akhtar measure up on that scale?

He's as likely to take a wicket with the new ball as he is when it's 20 overs old as he just spears them in fast as he can, regardless of using swing or seam like all the really great bowlers do. Oh and wrt Alan Donald...he shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Shoaib. Donald was an all time great whereas Shoaib is a legend....in his own mind.

Another not bad bowler who didn't object to bowling first change was a guy called Wasim Akram btw. Aaqib Javed quite often got the new ball ahead of him because he had a pearler of an away swinger.

[Beny]

The thing is that, as with Lee, I dont think that batsmen fear playing against Shoaib anymore. The pace factor just is'nt as scary now as it was 2 or 3 years ago. I still dont underestimate a ball traveling 160 kmph but if that ball is bouncing halfway down the pitch then it's useless and that's what I saw a lot of last time I saw him.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Am I right in thinking that Woolmer once had the services of one Alan Donald at his disposal? If I'm getting the story straight.. Woolmer took the unprecedented step of having his premier strike bowler come on at 1st change.. somewhere around the 15 over mark. I believe the reasoning was that any old nit could do OK with a hard a shiny new ball... against batsmen who haven't got "in"... and that matches were frequently lost when the pressure (and fielding restrictions) were removed.

If this IS Woolmer's reasoning.. and it was OK for the mighty Alan Donald.. who the **** does wee Shoaib Akhtar think he is to complain?

Rachael, that is of course true... though well before Donald, Pakistan were already employing this tactic in both ODIs and Tests with Waqar Younis. In the early and mid90s, when Waqar was at his peak and probably the best bowler in the world (the rankings of the period attest to this), he was routinely used as first change....and who took the new ball? Well generally, a chap called Aqib Javed, who was a handy outswinger but not in Waqar's class..

hence, agraid to correct you, the precedent on this ones rests with us...
Also, though I agree with Shoaib being used as first change, the Donald and Waqar analogies only go so far. Shoaib is a very different bowler from both of them, and relies much more on pace than Waqar ever did in his youth . ..

[Beny]

I know who I'd prefer in my team.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Beny

The thing is that, as with Lee, I dont think that batsmen fear playing against Shoaib anymore. The pace factor just is'nt as scary now as it was 2 or 3 years ago. I still dont underestimate a ball traveling 160 kmph but if that ball is bouncing halfway down the pitch then it's useless and that's what I saw a lot of last time I saw him.

Fast bowling in itself can be dangerous if it's channelled correctly. I saw footage of Michael Holding bowling and from what I saw he wasn't a great swinger of the ball but he put the ball in uncomfortable areas. Shoaib for the most part fails to bowl 6 good balls in an over. Even his use of the short ball is mostly wasted. In the recent series against South Africa he really un-nerved them with aggressive short-pitched bowling arriving at the batsman's ribs and took a few wickets with these deliveries. Generally he's happy to see the bouncers sailing harmlessly over the batsman's head.

[Shaka]

This is taken from one of Pakistan's online news sites (News International). Could earn our Shoaib a stay of execution.

Hamstring problem bothers Shoaib in short spell

From our correspondent

LAHORE: Pakistan fast bowler Shoaib Akhtar didn’t bowl more than four overs in the Sri Lankan innings on Thursday because of a slight hamstring problem.

Pakistan manager Haroon Rasheed said that there was nothing unusual about Shoaib not being given more than four overs in the Sri Lankan innings.

"He had a slight hamstring problem and the captain and coach didn’t want to take any risk with the final coming up on Saturday," he said. Shoaib conceded 30 runs in two spells of three overs and one over and didn’t bowl again in the innings. Haroon said the fast bowler, who has been brought on first change in recent matches, should be okay before the final.

Haroon was also spoken to by match referee Jeff Crowe about Muhammad Sami being taken out of the attack by umpire Simon Taufel for intimidatory bowling in the Sri Lankan innings. Pakistan is already facing a crisis of sorts in the pace department with two of its main bowlers Shabbir Ahmed and Umar Gul out of with injuries and Shoaib and Sami also struggling for form in recent times.

[Zainub]

Oh now, not the cat and mouse game again...

[Beny]

From reading the results I would have thought he diddent bowl more than 4 overs because he got smashed for 30 runs and no wickets....

[Maranello]

Shoaib has been selected for the final (according to Woolmer, the hamstring niggle is better) and was given the new ball...first over: five dot balls and a run-out of the fifth... not a bad start I guess . . .


Has the team management given in to the prima donna, or is this a genuine change of strategy?