Pakistan's test team policy

[Rachael]

LOL - all teams would surely love 6 world class batsmen and a four man attack that was so good that you didn't need a 5th bowler.. but what are the odds on that?

I'm sympathetic.. in that I prefer specialists.. but ask anyone who followed England's fortunes under Hussain.. and they will recall the perils of the captain having a 4 man attack that is NOT up to the job. Right now, that's the alternative open to Woolmer: a poor 4 man attack.. or a poor 5 man attack that can at least hide the worst performer on any given day.

One way or the other Razzaq obviously needs to step up a level (to become a genuine no 6 bat, or become a genuine 4th bowler) but England said the same of Flintoff a year ago.. and now he's showing signs of having stepped up on BOTH fronts. He's only had 30 Tests to date.. and has bags of potential.. so I'd be inclined to cut him a bit more slack.

I do think Pakistan have more serious concerns, really: sorting their openers out, getting consistency from the middle order, and sorting out the specialist bowlers so that they don't allow opponents to set huge targets woudl be a start.

[Shaka]

Zainub, Kallis is in a different class to Razzaq. Even if he didn't bowl he's a genuine test batsman of the highest calibre. I'll bet his bowling average is better too. For me a genuine all rounder is worth his place either as a batsman or a bowler. Anything else is a bits-and-pieces player. Razzaq is a fabulous ODI player, so is Malik. Both get picked for Pakistan more for their batting abilities than their bowling, and to be honest, I think Malik is the better bat.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Rachael

LOL - all teams would surely love 6 world class batsmen and a four man attack that was so good that you didn't need a 5th bowler.. but what are the odds on that?

I'm sympathetic.. in that I prefer specialists.. but ask anyone who followed England's fortunes under Hussain.. and they will recall the perils of the captain having a 4 man attack that is NOT up to the job. Right now, that's the alternative open to Woolmer: a poor 4 man attack.. or a poor 5 man attack that can at least hide the worst performer on any given day.

My view is that as Razzaq is neither going to become a test batsman or bowler (he's had loads of experience, he's been playing for Pakistan since the 1999 world cup), I would rather develop genuine specialists either as batsmen or bowlers. I mentioned Khalil because I saw something there to work with. as a no 6 bat, I think Asim Kamal might be worth going with, he's had some success against South Africa and India, we won't find out if he canb cut it abroad unless we give him a chance.

I agree with you about the openers being an issue butr I'm still trying to figure out what Razzaq's role is in the test team, and my opinion is that I'm pretty sure there are better batsmen to bat at no 6 and better alternatives to being frontline bowlers!

[Shaka]

Zainub, I've done a spot of research on both Oram and Kallis and this is what I've found:

JACOB ORAM: TESTS
(including 26/11/2004)
M I NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 Ct St
17 29 6 1002 126* 43.56 51.01 2 4 12 0

O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
486.4 124 1261 35 36.02 4-41 0 0 83.4 2.59


JAQUES KALLIS: TESTS
(including 28/11/2004)
M I NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 Ct St
82 137 23 6208 189* 54.45 41.81 17 32 76 0

O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
1853 511 5094 166 30.68 6-54 4 0 66.9 2.74

as you can see, both Oram and Kallis are worth their places on batting ability alone. Kallis is outstanding on that score, and his bowling is arguably good enough to justify his inclusion as a bowler.

[Zainub]

I'm not arguing if Razzaq's batting is better/worse than Freddie's / Kallis's / Oram's / or whoever just saying his bowling, that you have deemed under par, is just as good/bad at this point in time as theirs, possibly for the exception of Freddie, who can bowl at a much faster pace. Statistically as Racheal say's he is a better bowler than Sami, and that speaks something about his credentials.

Razzaq is way too talanted a player to be tagged a bits and peices all rounder, Kamran Abbasi once said he is the most complete all rounder Pakistan have produced since Imran Khan. Razzaq has under achived, there is no doubt in that, but he the potential to be developed into a world class allrounder, which we are working on.

Razzaq is not as unthreatenning as you suggest, Pakistan's 3rd bowler right now, Rachael might even say 2nd best.

[Shaka]

Well oram and Kallis's place can be justified as batsmen so there is no argument about their worth. Flintoff is now a bonafide strike bowler for England, he regularly cleans up the opposition and I don't think he can be described as a stock bowler. Speed isn't an issue, Flintoff achieves good lift from the wicket and in the right conditions can swing the ball quite well. He is definitely worth his place as a bowler alone for England.

Razzaq, like I said earlier, slants the ball in mainly and can bowl quite accurately, but I think as a bowler he isn't in our top 5 in Pakistan. Maybe in Australia right now with Gul and Shabbir out, but I think we need to be developing some of these other guys like Khalil or Asif as Razzaq is really a bowler suited more to ODI cricket (where he is without doubt exceptional). In test matches it's difficult to justify his continual inclusion.

[Rachael]

The key point with Razzaq is that he's only played 30 Tests ad is only 25 years old.. and he's basically having to learn in the Test arena what he would ideally learn in the domestic arena: no one disputes that he's no great shakes right now.. but then again.. neither is Sami. They both need time to master their crafts.

What you are saying of Razzaq is exactly what I was saying of Flintoff when HE had played just 30 Tests.. and believe me.. Razzaq, right now, is looking one hell of a lot more promising than Freddie did at the same stage. As a bowler he is streets ahead of where Flintoff was: he has a vastly superior action, his control is in the same league and his variety is altogether superior... and as a batsman he's showing himself to be an equally clean hitter of the ball with a very similarly suspect record against quality slow bowling.

I guess there are always big "ifs" in cricket.. but if he can respond to Woolmers coaching in the right manner then I don't doubt for one moment that Razzaq can join Flintoff and Oram as a genuine all-rounder (and eclipse the pair of them as a bowler). It's going to involve some change of focus on his part (because he appears to have become very centred on what's needed for the ODI game) but if he's got the right attitude then I don't see an reason why he shouldn't mature (in 3 years time) into a core member of the team.

I'd also bet on Sami eventually becoming a better bowler than Akhtar and a damn fine no 7 or 8 bat: another cornerstone of the side.

In Sami and Razzaq I see two players who are likely to follow a quite English or Australian (rather than subcontinental) career path... starting slowly.. and reaching their peak in their late 20s... and (because they are basically very fluent in what they do) making their real impact in their 30s. Give Woolmer time and I'm sure he'll ensure that will happen.

In the mean time.. I think it's a case of just accepting that there's a lot of learning to do before Pakistan starts challenging at the top of the game.

[Zainub]

I do not disagree with a single word you've said here Rachael, exactly my sentiments.

[Shaka]

Rachael, the difference between your viewpoint and mine is that I don't see Razzaq as an inexperienced player. He has spent at least two seasons bowling in county cricket - and in fact was released by Middlesex with suggestions that he wasn't really putting in the effort that was required. As for Woolmer, I'm not sure how adept he is as a bowling coach, it could well be that he can change Razzaq into a front line bowler. When I look at Sami, I see a bowler who has got all the tools necessary to be getting far better results than he is so if you were to say to me that in a year's time Sami will be a damn fine bowler I could picture that.

In fact with Razzaq I see him as a much more talented batsman and a role as a specialist bat seems more plausible to me. At the moment though he's performing both roles not quite well enough. And I wonder if he's really 25

[Rachael]

If you'd said, when Flintoff was 25, that he'd find some way of being useful as a Test bowler... you'd have been laughed at by every bowling coach in the country. Even now it's unclear that he's got in in him to be a notable Test bowler... but do you doubt that he is able to doa damn fine job for the team? I don't.

As a bowler, Razzaq has FAR more going for him than Flintoff EVER did. His action is a LOT less mechanical, and whilst he's suffered from the ODI bowling and from playing stock bowler to Sami and Shoaib... he has the kind of relaxed, flowing approach and release that would have ANY coach absolutely purring.

Sure, the guy's gone backwards of late.. but given the people who were running the show before Woolmer... is that surprising?

I've my doubts that Razzaq will ever be a complete Test batsman.. but I've my doubts about Flintoff on that front as well.. and he wouldn't be the first guy to achieve more with a good eye and some clean-hitting ability than many more accomplished batsmen.

ps. Flintoff kicked off as a Test player in 1998. He was truly diabolical with the bat until last summer.. and looked a no 7 at best until the middle of this year. Flintoff's performances with the ball started picking up in Sri Lanka, but after years of looking ****, Troy C has found a way, in the past 6 months, of getting some decent performances from him. Razzaq's performaces to date, with both bat AND ball, completely eclipse what Flintoff had achieved at the same stage in his career. Given the more obvious potential AND the better record.. your aversion seems excessive.

I wonder if you should have more faith in modern coaching and be less concerned with "talent".