Australia v Pakistan: build-up

[Milo]

Youhana always seems to be the one to score runs when everyone else fails. He rescued Pakistan in the world cup against Scotland, was the only one who stood up in the first test against India and saw them home in the ICC match.

The problem is, that as in the test match in South Africa where he scored a 27 ball 50, he really can't be bothered when other people are falling all around him. He just has a bit of fun (77 off 60 odd balls today).

The answer. He must bat higher - he is wasted at 5 in this Pakistan team. He must go in at 3 to give him a good chance of playing proper innings. Given that the openers really will not be able to play the new ball (and Younis Khan will be eaten alive), it will benefit the team in that way as well. Once again, the Pakistanis are also showing that omitting Taufeeq was a crime. Yasir Hamed was never going to be an opener. I'd have played him at 5. Niow, he won't even make the side.

25-2 in every test. I think it a foregone conclusion.

[Maranello]

25/2 might be too optimistic mate! The first two wickets might not get to 20 against McGrath and Gillespie....

Butt's form and attitude have been an encouragement, bu Farhat and Younis both a disappointment. I am not sure Youhana at 3 is the answer, with Farhat getting out cheaply, he would effectively be opening He really does not have the technique to do that and probably will be eaten alive too... and hence we will lose the runs he is making at no.5. The solution maybe is to have the people around him stick around for longer, eg Malik, Razzy etc. If Yoyo knows that its not all a complete lost cause by the time he comes in, he might apply himself more; as far as pure batting elegance is concerned, an on-song Youhana has few equals... many batsmen have the timing and the wristy exeuction, but few have his knack for excecllent placement.

[Zainub]

First things first. Can't possibly put in it in words how delighted I am at the fact that Shoaib got rid of Langer this early - I'm so very glad about that. I have to admit it was nice to see the back of him early into this match after all that the things he has been saying. Also very pleased to see Razzaq and Youhanna come good with the bat. Hopefully the others will deliver soon, sooner rather than later.

Secondly, I don't appreciate when people seem to pass out suggestions seemingly without knowing the whole story. Yousuf Youhanna has often spoken of his reluctance to bat any higher in the order than 4, and has categorically specified that unless absolutely neccessery for the team's sake he'd personally not prefer batting at number 3. Inzi has also shown a reluctance to bat at 3. We can't just force two of our best batsmen into batting in a position they are not comfortable with, although I'm not sure why that should be the case since they are very frequently facing the new ball anyway. However, since they have said they do not want to bat at 3 we should be respecting that because their records batting at 4/5 more than support their claims. In particular the impression that "Youhanna is being wasted at 5" is increasingly misleading.

PHP Code:

                    Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
 
 unfiltered            53   87   8  3846 204* 203  159   48.68  11  21   7
 filtered              43   66   7  3266 204* 203  159   55.35  11  17   5 


Those statistics suggest just the opposite of what you mean by being wasted at 5 Milo, it suggests that Youhanna has enjoyed batting at 5. It is noteworthy that all of Youhana's 11 test 100s have come batting at 5, off his 21 test fifties all but 4 have come batting at 5. He averages 6.67 runs more per innings batting at 5 than his over all record. It is alright to have opinions Milo, but we must be careful of how they might compare with the actual facts.

We have been looking towards some one else who can do bat for us at 3 for a while now, but with mixed resutls unfortunately. For the time being Younis Khan has done nothing to suggest that he cannot do that job for us on the long term basis. As a matter of fact he made a test century batting in that position in our last test (inccidently we also won that match) so droping him from that position or from the team completely would be unfair to him. Let's not forget he also made a 100 in a tour game recently. I'm not willing to write him off just yet, I don't personally think he'll be "eaten up".

And finally, I'm not prepared to right off us just yet, not this early. Yes our batting hasn't been as convincing as I would have hoped so far in the warm up games, but it only takes one good innings to turn things around, I can think of no reason why we cannot improve. If there is, please tell me so. I think we'll go in with the same line up as in this match and do better than we have done today. There is absolutely no reason what so ever to be so pessimistic. Where's Erne? I think we need another of those posts on why he think England's the best team in the world do re-enlighten our selves with the spirit of true loyal fans-manship.

100-0, not a foregone conclusion, but with fingers crossed, anything can happen, and yes, if that's being naive, that so be it it, may be I am. I don't care. But I can't seemingly think of one reason why anyone should be so negative so as to suggest 25-2 would be an optimistic forgone conclusion.

[Zainub]

Just for the record Beny, I don't think he chucks, not intentially anyway, and most certainly not under the new 15 degree rulings. I hope they sort him out with what ever minor problems he has cause the whole action thingy a/c to Woolmer has been playing on his mind all the time, and I fear it is affecting his batting and bowling adeversly. He's an important player for us, so I wish that meating with the experts goes well.

[Beny]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Cricke...182424601.html

Who the hell is Dorey?

Is he even contracted?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by The Age

If Brett Dorey and Ben Edmondson, two young West Australian pacemen with eight first-class games between them, can do what they did to Pakistan's top order yesterday, the mind boggles at what carnage Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie might create at the WACA Ground next week.

My thoughts exactly..... What is really shambolic about Pakistan's batting for a good few years now, is the regular rout of the so-called specialist batsmen. There are eight decent batsmen in this side, and only three of them reached double figures. If this was a one-off aberration, I could be sanguine about it but this is very common and all too regular... many of the specialist batsmen routinely get out cheaply and the team relies on a couple of guys to put up the total.

Woolmer's explanation is that this is a team full of impact players, stroke makers etc..and not a single grafter who can chisel out an innings without any risky shots, and without offering any chances. Not one. Hence when our batsmen come off, as Youhana, Razzy and Butt did today, they score quickly, handsomely and authoritatively... but the other five who did not present a truly sorry spectacle. I blame too much ODI, from when these guys are 2 y.o., through their schools, under-19, A teams, domestic and international caps. Even in Paksitan domestic tournaments (Quaid e Azam trophy, and Patrons trophy) it is very very unusual for teams to bat for more than 80 odd overs, in a four day match. Woolmer expressed his shock when he first discovered this.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Woolmer's explanation is that this is a team full of impact players, stroke makers etc..and not a single grafter who can chisel our an innings without any risky shots, and without offering any chances. Not one. [...I]t is very very unusual for teams to bat for more than 80 odd overs, in a four day match. Woolmer expressed his shock when he first discovered this.

LOL. Not that surprising a revelation though.

I've no objection to "impact" players.. but my idea of an "impact" player would be Len Hutton: a guy who was sensational at the gritty stuff that is the basis of Test cricket.. but who could also tear a team apart when that was called for.

Thorpe was originally something of an "impact" player who initially lacked that gritty side... and for that reason lived very much in the shadow of Atherton throughout the early years of his career.. and struggled even in the middle of his career to gain the recognition he deserved after improving that bedrock side to his game.

Thing is... I can't imagine that Thorpe was ever left in any doubt that he'd lack credibility as a player UNTIL he mastered the Atherton like grit that would allow him to deliver when it really counted. Likewise Ramprakash and Hick were undone by the concern that their ability as impact players wouldn't even guarantee their place in the side if they didn't show the ability to grind out the turgid innings when the impact stuff was not an option.

Same on the bowling front, really: English strike bowlers like Devon Malcolm have always had it made very clear to them that the "impact" stuff was no damn use to anyone if it wasn't complimented by a formidable ability to ensure that the aggressive intent didn't play into the hands of the opposition... they've never lived under the misapprehension that being formidable when conditions suit is a substitute for being at least effective the rest of the time.

I wonder if the same has ever been true in Pakistan? That an "impact" player (batting OR bowling) has lived in the shadows knowing that he would not be taken seriously until he showed that his "impact" cricket was merely the icing on a very, very formidably gritty cake.

Strikes me that domestic enthusiasm for the "impact" cricketer is getting out of hand in this country.. not least with the vitriol that has, over the past few years, been directed at Hussain, Giles and Hoggard... and with the insane adulation of out most promising "impact" players.. who have become "celebrities" out of all proportion to their significance... but that's been restricted largely to the tabloids, the barmy army and the youngsters.

In Pakistan I get the impression that the obsession with impact goes far deeper.. to the point where ven amongst serious comentators.. Sami would be hailed above Hoggard.. Akhtar would be hailed over Pollock... Inzi would be hailed over Dravid... Youhana would be hailed over Kirsten... and the glories of Waqar would be hailed above those of McGrath.

Mkes the coaches job pretty tough

[Zainub]

Your criticism is justified, I won't defend Pakistan's batting against WA, because our batting has been reflecting what you just said. But I do believe we are improving, so at least there is some hope. And I know you'll think I'm just raving on the same things again and again, but can't help it, that's how I am.

And is it really the players' fault that they have to play 30 one-day games in a year but barely 5-7 tests in the same period? Remember M that its the cricket boards that decide the schedules, not players, they can only play what they are told to. Our batsmen have been guilty but they are not the only ones I'll blame. I'd love to see Pakistan play fewer ODIs and more tests then they do now, a balance needs to be found, which currently doesn't exist.

However I don't see why a team full of stroke players should struggle to adapt to test cricket, if they are good enough like are Aus they will know when to play which shots, like do Ponting, Hayden, Martyn, Clarke, and Mark Waugh, Micheal Slater and others in the past - these guys are/were all stroke makers and were part of successful Australian teams. I don't think you have to change your natural game, if you like playing your shots, you should do that, just a matter of selecting the right balls do play them at.

It is all too easy to write us off, but in actual fact we are still quite inexperienced, I would say the most inexperienced batting wise of all test playing nations baring Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, with only Inzamam and Youhana having played over 50 tests, the likes of Farhat, Hameed and Malik are still very much novices at the highest level, Younis Khan and Razzaq have both got a few matches under their belt, but they rarely been in the side on a consistent run, and that doesn't help they'll tell you.

Every one takes time to settle down with their careers, unfortunately our team at this stage has a whole bunch of players looking to do that i.e. settle down into their career, and it is natural therefore that we'll witness indifferent and inconsistent flash of lightenning, very-good-one-day-and-awful-another-day type batting displays. We have to be a bit more patient. I'm glad Woolmer is. Not sure all the fans in Pakistan are.

[Maranello]

From a historical perspective, my impression of English cricket from a very young age has always been that it lacked flair and went for grit over style, so the English preferred Gatting, Gooch, DeFreitas, Lamb etc, for their grit and determination, over the likes of truly talented players, and Gower and Botham were the only real English cricket stars of my youth, the rest were all journeymen. This impression is borne out by what you say about the likes of Malcolm, Ramps, Hick, etc.

Originally Posted by Rachael

In Pakistan I get the impression that the obsession with impact goes far deeper.. to the point where ven amongst serious comentators.. Sami would be hailed above Hoggard.. Akhtar would be hailed over Pollock... Inzi would be hailed over Dravid... Youhana would be hailed over Kirsten... and the glories of Waqar would be hailed above those of McGrath.

Instead of Malcolm, Ramps and Hick, we had Waqar, Inzamam and Anwar... all impact players who played for Pakistan and with distinction, I don't think anyone meddled with their natural talent or flair by telling to be what they were not, since they were simply so good at what they did. Had they been less talented, they might have been forced down that route. Each team would love to have 2 or 3 of these type of players, but should not have more than half - someone has to do the dirty work, or in Cantona's words, be the "water-carrier" (his description of Didier Deshamps).

In general, the cricketing heroes of most Pakistanis are truly great crickterers, not talentless grafters or mindless sloggers. The best batsmen that all Pakistanis love to talk about are people like Zaheer and Miandad, both of whom could take an attack apart, especially the former, but both had reserves of steel and generally, flawless technique and defense.

I am not sure there is an obsession with impact in Pakistan amongst serious observers, most would love to have someone obdurate such as Dravid in our batting line-up. On your comparisons, only youngster would make the claims you suggest. However, everyone would, rightly, say that Waqar should be hailed above Pollock, and the glories of Wasim would be hailed over those of McGrath.

Inzi is a different case, he has the talent and temperament, the nerves and the toughness to battle it out with the best of them, but is not as consistent as a Dravid. He himself, being a genuinely decent and humble guy, admits that he has had some atrociously poor series over his career, and hence is not as good as some of his more illustrious contemproraries, eg SRT and Dravid. However, over the past year and a half, he has been a changed man, and his batting has been something to behold; classic defense, excellent shot selection, and judicious attack. In this period, I would rather have him over Dravid any day, since Inzamam is a leader with the bat - he mentors others around him and nurtures them through their innings, a role Miandad performed over many many years with distinction.

So there you have it - its hard to unearth another Miandad or Inzamam, or even a truly gifted impact player like Anwar. What we have now are players who, at the moment, are in the Hick category, stroke players who are not quite there at international level, and who lack the grit, toughness and determination to make up for it.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Zainub Razvi

However I don't see why a team full of stroke players should struggle to adapt to test cricket, if they are good enough like are Aus they will know when to play which shots, like do Ponting, Hayden, Martyn, Clarke, and Mark Waugh, Micheal Slater and others in the past - these guys are/were all stroke makers and were part of successful Australian teams. I don't think you have to change your natural game, if you like playing your shots, you should do that, just a matter of selecting the right balls do play them at.

Yes, as long as you are that good. yasir Hameed has given no indication that he is the next Sehwag or Slater, so he needs to put his head down and work on the basics. If you are as good as Mark Waugh or Sehwag, then you can get away with being just an impact player - lesser mortals have to work hard at other aspects of their game to compensate.