SL vs PAK ... 1st test match

[fair_&_balance]

I think major problem in Pakistani Cricket Test is having no confidence in their regular batsmen and hence paking the team with bits-&-piece players. Unlike ODIs test matches are won by specialist. There is no point in trying to get team balance with all rounder like Razzaq. This guy is great ODI player but he is equally lousy test player. Biggest mistake woolmer did is that he counted him and Malik as test bowler and went into test with only 3 bowlers. They need to stick to specialist and must have 4 specialist bowlers and hope the batsmen like Yoyo & Inzi delivers.

[Rachael]

I am as passionate a supporter of "specialists" in Test cricket as anyone.. but in this case Woolmer has two counter arguments:

{a} Duncan Fletcher's excuse for sticking with Flintoff all this time.. that genuine all-rounders are "made" not "found".. that with enough work you can take a guy who isn't great in either discipline and actually get a Tst class cricketer out of them.

{b} Razzaq's ability with the ball.. as indicated in the PWC ratings:

4   Shoaib Akhtar  PAK  836 24.32 861 v New Zealand, Wellington 2003  
 21   Saqlain Mushtaq  PAK  558 29.84 764 v New Zealand, Auckland 2001  
 23   Danish Kaneria  PAK  541 29.30 615 v Bangladesh, Chittagong 2002  
 28   Umar Gul  PAK  515 24.56 525 v India, Lahore 2004  
 31  -1  Shabbir Ahmed  PAK  489 25.48 588 v New Zealand, Wellington 2003  
 51  -7  Abdul Razzaq  PAK  333 38.09 480 v Australia, Sharjah 2002  
 53  -1  Mushtaq Ahmed  PAK  320 32.97 827 v New Zealand, Rawalpindi 1996  
 57  +3  Mohammad Sami  PAK  303 45.35 305 v New Zealand, Auckland 2001

...and in the match performance:

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Shoaib Akhtar               19      3     60      5 (1nb)
Mohammad Sami               21.4    5     71      4 (4nb)
Abdul Razzaq                15      5     33      0 (1nb)
Danish Kaneria              18      3     53      1
Shoaib Malik                 8      1     23      0

 and 

Bowling                      O      M      R      W
Shoaib Akhtar               25      1    115      3 (6nb, 3w)
Mohammad Sami               12      1     48      0 (4nb)
Abdul Razzaq                22      7     78      0 (2nb)
Danish Kaneria              38.2    4    117      4
Shoaib Malik                12      1     58      1

What this little lot suggests is that Razzaq is actually fully deserving of his place in the side as a specialist bowler. It wasn't Razzaq that leaked runs at over 3 an over in the first innings (that was Akhtar and Sami: Razzaq restored some control at an impressive 2.11). It is true that not even Razzaq could contain Jayasuria in the second innings.. but (for example) Sangakkara took Akhtar apart at 9.33 per over, took Sami apart at 5.40 an over and showed some respect to Razzaq, who contained him to a stunning 2.85 per over.

PWC suggest that Razzaq's a better Test bowler than Sami: the stats back that up.

                      O      M     R    W    Ave   BBI    5  10    SR  Econ
Sami       580.4  106  1950   43  45.34  5-36    2   0  81.0  3.35
Razzaq      702.1  142  2057   54  38.09  4-25    0   0  78.0  2.92

Razzaq's taken more wickets.. at a better average.. with a better strike rate.. and without leaking runs as Sami does!

The Wisden profile backs up your own verdict though:

Originally Posted by wisden

Abdul Razzaq is rapid enough to open the bowling and composed enough to bat anywhere. His bowling - the reason he was first noticed - is characterised by a galloping approach, accuracy, and reverse-swing. But it is his batting that is more likely to win matches. He boasts a prodigious array of strokes and is particularly strong driving through cover and mid-off off both front and back foot. He has two gears: block or blast. Cut off the big shots and Abdul gets bogged down, although patience is his virtue. Early in his career he promised to be Pakistan’s most complete allrounder since Imran Khan, but lately his bowling has fallen away, though he remains an effective bowling option in one-dayers.
Kamran Abbasi

[Nikhil]

Pakistan's batting is very brittle. Hameed, Inzimam and Youhana being the only really good batsmen. Playing Malik and Razzaq is a bit of gamble. Razzaq is steadily declining as a bolwer. He was not at all a threat in the India series. He used to get a lot of reverse swing, but for some reason his bowling has fallen apart.

And when that happens, Pakistan are with only three bowlers. Akhtar, Sami and Kaneria. Out of these, Sami is not the kind of bowler who I would pick. He seems to do well once in a while only. I used to think highly of him, but don't really see him making into a good bowler. So, basically Pakistan have two bowlers, Akhtar and Kaneria who need to do the job, and that's a very difficult task.

[fair_&_balance]

Rachael ,
I am surprised that you gave run/over as the criteria to justify his bowling ability. This is test cricket we are talking about. I would any day prefer a bowler who gets some beating but takes wicket over a bowler who is very economical but doesnt take wicket. Fact is that instead of bowling 37 overs in the test match he couldnot get a single wicket. For me this is not figure of a regular bowler. It is shame that a country who has produced so many great fast bowler has to rely on Razzaq as its 4th bowler. Razzaq doesnt belong in pakistani test either as bowler or Batsman.

[Rachael]

I'm not going to pass any judgement on Razzaq as I just haven't seen / heard enough.. but I will suggest that in any good Test match there should be passages of play where the side in the field have a window of opportunity (and can push for wickets) punctuating long periods of play when that is simply not possible (when damage limitation is the order of the day).

It strikes me that even when Pakistan had Imran Khan, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis in the same attack the team was still better suited to exploiting those windows of opportunity to turn matches than they were and grinding out the periods in which matches could be lost, but not won.

As a bowler, Flintoff is a boon to England.. but not (princpally) for any wicket taking ability. The wickets are NICE.. and WELCOME... but the big guy really comes into his own when the shine's gone off the new ball.. but there's no swing... and the ball (whilst soft) is not old enough to reverse - when he stops the opposition running away with the game.

If Razzaq can be the bowler to just rest the strike bowlers in situations like that (when no seamer on earth is really going to fancy his chances of taking wickets) then I think Pakistan might be well served by him. It's not the sexiest job in cricket.. but if it gives the other guys a rest until conditions change or the condition of the ball changes then he's perhaps not such a bad move.

I might not do this if I were more in touch the players and had been seeing the players day in, day out.. but on the basis of the reports and the scorecards then right now... I'd change Sami before I'd change Razzaq!

[Maranello]

Rachael, but in sub-continental conditions, I think a good slow bowler do that job too... hence Pakistan did pretty well when playing Waqar and Wasim together with no Flintoff or Pollock like character to back them up (though Aqib Javed did try for a while!), since the likes of Mushy, Saqlain and various other, lesser slow bowlers can do an effective containment job in those periods of an innings when everything is going the batting sides' way . . .

So, Razzaq, though useful in that role, is probably not as useful as Malik, unless the former begins to pick up more wickets

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

It wasn't Razzaq that leaked runs at over 3 an over in the first innings (that was Akhtar and Sami: Razzaq restored some control at an impressive 2.11). It is true that not even Razzaq could contain Jayasuria in the second innings.. but (for example) Sangakkara took Akhtar apart at 9.33 per over, took Sami apart at 5.40 an over and showed some respect to Razzaq, who contained him to a stunning 2.85 per over.

Rachael, with all due respect, your argument here is ridiculous... Shoaib took 5 wickets in the first innings and destroyed the Sri Lankan top order in the first half hour... who cares if runs were scored at over 3 (which is quite a decent economy rate in current day Test matches)...the point is, a strong batting line up on an excellent batting pitch in excellent batting conditions could only get 243 on the first day... and that was because of strike bowlers like Shoaib and Sami, the fact that runs at over 3 were scored off them is irrelevent since they did contribute with 9 wickets! Of course, leaking runs at 4 an over for 30 overs and taking 1 or 2 wickets would be unforgiveable, but that is not what they did.

There is also a case for arguing that the likes of Razzaq allowed Sri Lanka back into the game, allowing their lower order to score more runs, and had a wicket taking pace bowler, eg Shabbir or a more effective spinner been bowling, we could have capitalised further on the work of Shoaib.

I know you seem to prefer hard working trundlers (eg Vaas and Pollock) over genuinely talented fast bowlers, but praising Razzaq's Day 1 performance over Shoaib or Sami's is frankly taking this obsession a tad too far!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Rachael, with all due respect, your argument here is ridiculous... [...] I know you seem to prefer hard working trundlers (eg Vaas and Pollock) over genuinely talented fast bowlers, but praising Razzaq's Day 1 performance over Shoaib or Sami's is frankly taking this obsession a tad too far!

LOL - and given what's actually being said of the variously bowlers on this thread then perhaps fair enough.

On the other hand... if Razzaq is a hard working trundler and Sami is a genuinely talented fast bowler.. how come Razzaq has the better strike rate.. and the better average.. and the better PWC rating?

Just teasing. I really wanted to reply to your other post:

Originally Posted by Maranello

Rachael, but in sub-continental conditions, I think a good slow bowler do that job too... hence Pakistan did pretty well when playing Waqar and Wasim together with no Flintoff or Pollock like character to back them up (though Aqib Javed did try for a while!), since the likes of Mushy, Saqlain and various other, lesser slow bowlers can do an effective containment job in those periods of an innings when everything is going the batting sides' way . . .

So, Razzaq, though useful in that role, is probably not as useful as Malik, unless the former begins to pick up more wickets

Very good point.

I'm frequently taken by the notion that a Test side whould just pick it's best four bowlers (irrespective of how they bowl) and leave them to it (without worrying about things like balance, and on th understanding that if your four best can't do it, the fifth best is unlikely to add much).

Against that.. I can see that who counts as you best bowler is always going to depend on what you are going to ask them to do.. with what field.. on what pitch.. in what match situation.. and so on.. something brought into focus elsewhere on this site where others have noted that even Waqar could be as much a run-leaking liability to his own side as an wicket-taking asset.

I take your point that on the sub-continent in particular a quality spinner or two can change the equasion quite comprehensively... allowing a team to bowl a Sami-like strike bowler in short spells and therefore bringing in the benefits of his "shock value" without giving batsmen long enough to amass huge totals off him - a scenario our own Simon Jones might well find appealing.

Question is.... just how much leeway does that give you? A few years Australia could risk Brett Lee because they had Shane Warne at his peak bowling up to 40 overs a day from day one of tests.. a dependable workhorse in McGrath.. an a solid operator in Gillespie. England, now, can risk Simon Jones or Jimmy Anderson because they have 4 other frontline bowlers to fall back on. Pakistan, by contrast, appear to actually be DEPENDENT on Sami - which seems a little risky!

[Shaka]

Razzaq is a good one day player, but at test level his bowling lacks penetration although he's not a bad stock bowler to keep the run rate in check. His batting too is suspect against spin bowling which makes his inclusion questionable long term..or at least against teams with good spin bowlers.

Sami offers more firepower but has not performed consistently either. He's out of tomorrow's test match, should be interesting to see how his replacement fares.