Pakistan's test team policy

[Shaka]

Pakistan needs to make a stand IMO and get rid of the bits and pieces players from the test team altogether. A start has been made in Perth and as usual the batsmen were found wanting, but we need to get away from weakening our bowling unnecessasarily to cover for this incompetence. Abdul Razzaq and Shoaib Malik are not good enough bowlers at this level to justify their places with the ball. They are too often playing only to bolster the schoolboy-ish batting.

IMO we should always have 3 genuine seam bowlers and a genuine spinner. If Razzaq and Malik can find a way into the side it should not be at the expense of these bowlers - maybe they could replace the batsmen who's failures they are covering for. What we need to find as a matter of urgency is a competent wicketkeeper batsman, and Kamran Akmal has not passed the test so next please. Humayun Farhat or Zulqarnain should be given a go.

As for the batsmen...well they are beyond help to be honest. All I can say is that we need to get used to the idea that there will be only 5 batsmen until we find a genuine bowling all rounder. It's up to them to apply themselves and make those 5 batting spots count. If Shoaib Akhtar and Sami can put on 50 run partnerships at Perth there's probably a lesson there somewhere.

[Rachael]

I thought the team selection was as good as could be managed for this current Test: Razzaq in Flintofesque at 6.. and ideally a number 7... but with a 7-8-9 that includes Sami, Shoaib and Kamran Akmal there's enough support for the top 5 so long as the depth of the bowling means the opposition totals can be kept low.

Great ploy if you really CAN bowl sides out whilst containing them at 2.5-3.0 an over... but for every frontline bowler that goes at 4.00+ an over you need some extra strengthening of the batting. If ALL the bowlers are expensive then you are routinely going to have to post 400+ in an innings.. and you ain't going to do that without putting genuine batsmen right down to 8.

[flanflinger]

Kaneria doesn't look as effective against good teams away from home, as he does against Bangladesh in his back garden..

I would say that Razzaq has consitenly under-achieved and am baffled why he gets selected so often - Azhar Mahmood would be a better bet as he can actually score runs, but he is a genuine bolwer as well.

[Shaka]

We don't really need a 5 man attack, a 4 man attack would do nicely if it was a genuine 4 man attack. Razzaq unfortunately can be compared to Flintoff as a batsman only. As a bowler he isn't in the same class any more. He's medium pace and generally very comfortable for the facing batsmen. Gilchrist was cutting him at will yesterday. The run rate of the leading bowlers would be a concern if they weren't taking wickets but they were and Australia were generally in most trouble when they were bowling.

Two bowlers didn't come off yesterday, that was Khalil and Kaneria. Khalil was unlucky for me, he bowled some genuinely good deliveries that beat the bat of Langer quite comprehensively. I'd like to see how he does tomorrow, but he looks like he could be a prospect. Kaneria...this wasn't the pitch for him. Not enough turn and even Warne was struggling to trouble Sami and Shoaib this early in the match. Yes he picked up three wickets, but he was gifted all 3. He's guaranteed one wicket every game against Pakistan because Razzaq is like a rabbit caught in headlights against him. In fact Razzaq is playing mainly as a batsman in these games as other than against Warne, he's a decent bat against the rest. Which sadly, is more than can be said for the specialist batsmen.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Kaneria doesn't look as effective against good teams away from home, as he does against Bangladesh in his back garden..

I would say that Razzaq has consitenly under-achieved and am baffled why he gets selected so often - Azhar Mahmood would be a better bet as he can actually score runs, but he is a genuine bolwer as well.

Flanflinger - Razzaq's case has been dicussed elsewhere on this board.. but it's worth noting that he came on to the scene as a bowler rather than as a batsman... and whilst he's not been setting the world alight.. by the standard of his colleagues' bowling... he's been OK: he's been outclassed by the specialists in this Test against Australia.. but you need to look back to the preceding Test match to see what he CAN do - by all accounts he bowled superbly.

Put it this way: Razzaq's only played 30 Tests.. taking 59 wickets at 37.13 but offering the one thing the other bowlers have struggled with: great control (2.90). That compares with Flintoff having taken 53 wickets at 45.54 at the same 30-Test mark.

Razzaq broke into the world top 30 in 19 Tests.. with 40+ in the ratings.. a rating Flintoff only managed at Bridgetown in his 32nd Test and a ranking he only managed at Trent Bridge this summer (in his 36th Test). Give him the chance that Flintoff has had and he promises to be at least as good a bowler.

Of course.. Razzaq's now also being put into bat at 6... where he's averaging 29.79.. which is more than the 26.14 that Flintoff was averaging after the same number of Tests... and having broken 400 in the Test ratings inside 16 Tests (Flintoff was on 319 at that point).

I'd not suggest that just because Flintoff made it.. Razzaq will.. but it would seem a bit odd to give up on Razzaq at this stage when his start to his career compares so favourably.

[Shaka]

Rachael, Flintoff was overweight and generally without direction in his early days, something which he seems to have put right and moved to a next step in his career. Ask any Pakistan fan who has been watching Pakistan over the last few years and they will tell you the same thing; Razzaq has lost both intensity as a bowler and variety. His stock delivery is slanted in to the right hand batsman and he gets very few to go the other way. He managed to do that in his previous test match and picked up some wickets but it happens so rarely that he just can't be counted as a front line bowler. He is picked more often than not because he scores runs so effectively he's a number 6 bat who can bowl a bit.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Razzaq broke into the world top 30 in 19 Tests.. with 40+ in the ratings.. a rating Flintoff only managed at Bridgetown in his 32nd Test and a ranking he only managed at Trent Bridge this summer (in his 36th Test). Give him the chance that Flintoff has had and he promises to be at least as good a bowler.

Blah Blah Blah - why do you always go on about Flintoff... it really is very tedious

I merely said that I would prefer Mahmood, and you have to bring Flintoff into it...why?

Razzaq has a batting average of just less than 30 and a bolwing average that woeful.. it was Shaka that brought the debate up about having Razzaq in the team. I merely agreed with that statement...It has to be said that he has under-performed, and has not realised, and is looking less likely to realise, his obvious talent.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

I merely said that I would prefer Mahmood, and you have to bring Flintoff into it...why?

You actually said "I would say that Razzaq has consitenly under-achieved and am baffled why he gets selected so often".. and I was merely pointing out that as both batsmen and bowler he's doing better than Flintoff was after 30 Tests.

Maybe you don't think Flintoff should have been persisted with.. but if the English all-rounder has shown anything it is that building a world class all-rounder takes time.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Razzaq has a batting average of just less than 30 and a bolwing average that woeful.. it was Shaka that brought the debate up about having Razzaq in the team. I merely agreed with that statement...It has to be said that he has under-performed, and has not realised, and is looking less likely to realise, his obvious talent.

Razzaq's bowling average ain't fantastic.. but it's better than Sami's.. and in truth he (as Flintoff did for England) has been doing a good job for his team even when not acting as a strike bowler. Give Woolmer a few months with him and I then judge: there must be reasonable odds on him coming out of it as the sort of world class all-rounder that Pakistan so desperately need.

Originally Posted by Shaka 28882

[...] Razzaq has lost both intensity as a bowler and variety. [...] He is picked more often than not because he scores runs so effectively he's a number 6 bat who can bowl a bit.

It's true that he's looked ordinary of late.. but even whilst being "ordinary" he's actually been doing a job for his team: he's generally proven himself a far, far better as a plan 'B' bowler (i.e. stock bowler) than either of his more illustrious colleagues.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Razzaq's bowling average ain't fantastic.. but it's better than Sami's.. and in truth he (as Flintoff did for England) has been doing a good job for his team even when not acting as a strike bowler. Give Woolmer a few months with him and I then judge: there must be reasonable odds on him coming out of it as the sort of world class all-rounder that Pakistan so desperately need.

Pakistan needs above all else six world class batsmen and 4 world class bowlers. In which case they wouldn't need make-do-and-mend bits and pices players!

It's true that he's looked ordinary of late.. but even whilst being "ordinary" he's actually been doing a job for his team: he's generally proven himself a far, far better as a plan 'B' bowler (i.e. stock bowler) than either of his more illustrious colleagues.

I can guarantee you that if We had 3 pace bowlers all similar to Razzaq the opposition would score 4-500 every match. Sami has a lot to prove still but he's a far more threatening bowler. I would like to see the likes of Mohammed Khalil given a run of a few games. He looks like he's got a bit about him, and there is a much better chance that he will develop into a genuine test bowler than Razzaq who if anything has gone backwards the last few years.

[Zainub]

Agree with Racheal here, Razzaq's bowling at this point as just as good/bad as other all rounders in test cricket, Oram, Kallis both bowl at his sort of pace, and they've done alright for their teams, just like Razzaq has done for us, without being exceptional. He took a 5-for against Sri Lanka recently, and that was when there was no Shoaib and Sami in the team, he took 2 wickets in our first innings, and even though he got slacked a bit by Gili intially he did have the better of him eventually. He's a decent bowler, who has perhpas under achieved, but has improved since Woolmer's arrival, and now is bowling better than he did before. His batting against spin is little suspect, but even then when he hits them they stay hit, he's way more comfortable against seamers, I have enough faith in him, both his batting and his bowling. He must improve his fielding though. All great all rounders were decent if not brilliant fielders, Razzaq is a bit slack in that department, but generally whole team is, so we all must improve. The thing is Umar Gul and Shabbir Ahmed are both injuried, normally they'd be in the team instead of Khalil, and both because of their height would have a better chance against most attacks then Khalil, then we would have 3 genuine seamers in our team + plus the all rouder . That would be what I think our thinktank would ideally want our attack to be like.