Australia vs Pakistan

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

No, in hindsight it was poor decision to bat (but I haven't mentioned anything about this decision in this thread), but you stated that tight bowling helped create pressure. I countered saying that poor batting caused the collapse.

So did the pakis bowl badly?

[Mantis]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

So did the pakis bowl badly?

Asif and Sami bowled well with help from the conditions (both pitch & cloud cover), but they weren't unplayable as evidenced by the fact that just 2 of the first 7 wickets were as a result of the wicket or of brilliant balls.

The first 2 wickets were from poor shots.

Wickets 3 and 4 were from good balls, Clarke played his one poorly.

Wickets 5, 6 & 7 were from poor shots.

After that it doesn't matter.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

Asif and Sami bowled well with help from the conditions (both pitch & cloud cover), but they weren't unplayable as evidenced by the fact that just 2 of the first 7 wickets were as a result of the wicket or of brilliant balls.

The first 2 wickets were from poor shots.

Wickets 3 and 4 were from good balls, Clarke played his one poorly.

Wickets 5, 6 & 7 were from poor shots.

After that it doesn't matter.

What about the balls that didn't take wickets? Were they bad shots too? They were stiff on a few occasions.

Anyway who is arguing that the Paki's were unplayable or if the Aussies batted badly? The Paki's bowled reasonable in favorable conditions. My point was it was better to bowl than bat even without hindsight. Given a different Ponting decision, it doesn't matter if the Pakis would have made less or more, it was better to have them batting in conditions that will most likely get better.

[mighty_west]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

What about the balls that didn't take wickets? Were they bad shots too? They were stiff on a few occasions.

Anyway who is arguing that the Paki's were unplayable or if the Aussies batted badly? The Paki's bowled reasonable in favorable conditions. My point was it was better to bowl than bat even without hindsight. Given a different Ponting decision, it doesn't matter if the Pakis would have made less or more, it was better to have them batting in conditions that will most likely get better.

It is obviously a combination of all factors, yeah Ponting could have bowled first, but, that said, if the Aussies didn't come out all guns blazing and lose cheap wickets on a deck they would all know would be one more suited to being more watchful rather than playing the big shots and counter attacking the pitch with aggression.

Things could have been different, the Aussie could have held their head, not played alot of rash shots, and there would be no drama's on Pontings decision to bat, knowing that this will be a spinners delight come day 5.

Thats the best i have seen Pakistan bowl for some time, Sami after 2 years of not in the test side, was just amazing, and some of the decisions by some of the batsmen were just as amazing, but in the negative, thats arguably Pontings worst ever forst ball shot to play, the first thing you do as a batsman is check the field, he played that directly to a man, and just eased it rather than playing right through it, Hughes was trying to belt his way through it, and should have been out twice, Clarke left a gap between bat & pad bigger than the grand canyon, good ball, but he should have closed the gap and just played a defensive shot.

[mighty_west]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

Asif and Sami bowled well with help from the conditions (both pitch & cloud cover), but they weren't unplayable as evidenced by the fact that just 2 of the first 7 wickets were as a result of the wicket or of brilliant balls.

The first 2 wickets were from poor shots.

Wickets 3 and 4 were from good balls, Clarke played his one poorly.

Wickets 5, 6 & 7 were from poor shots.

After that it doesn't matter.

Agree with all of that, the mistake the Aussies made was to seemingly go out with an attacking mindset on a pitch not suited to that type of game, as a batsman, it's not too hard to adapt to certain conditions, we simply didn't do that.

[mighty_west]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

Not sure.

Might look at dropping Katich down the order and have Watson & Hughes open up. Other options could be Klinger or Bailey maybe even Rogers.

Our batting depth is quite thin and having a T20 running at present is really poor timing as it would nice if Klinger and others could be making some runs at Shield level to keep their names in front of the selectors eyes.

I am not big on dropping Punter diown the order, but, here's an option:

Bringing Rogers in to open with Katich, bat Clarke at 3, Watson 4 [Jacques Kallis probably bowls as much as Watson and has owned the 2nd drop position in the batting order with SA], Ponting 5 and bat Hughes at 6, give him some confidence down the order, and a free licence to play more shots.

[GVGjr]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

I am not big on dropping Punter diown the order, but, here's an option:

Bringing Rogers in to open with Katich, bat Clarke at 3, Watson 4 [Jacques Kallis probably bowls as much as Watson and has owned the 2nd drop position in the batting order with SA], Ponting 5 and bat Hughes at 6, give him some confidence down the order, and a free licence to play more shots.

If the selectors went with Jaques instead of Rogers you almost have the NSW batting line-up.

I had similar ideas of batting Hughes at 5 or 6 but good players make teams hurt from dropping them early on and he didn't learn anything from the chance given. Perhaps he only has one game (attack) but if that is the case is he really for test cricket?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

It is obviously a combination of all factors, yeah Ponting could have bowled first, but, that said, if the Aussies didn't come out all guns blazing and lose cheap wickets on a deck they would all know would be one more suited to being more watchful rather than playing the big shots and counter attacking the pitch with aggression.

Who is to say the Paki's wouldn't have batted worse? The conditions suited the bowlers, no matter how badly the Aussie's batted. The choice to bat was incorrect.

[mighty_west]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

If the selectors went with Jaques instead of Rogers you almost have the NSW batting line-up.

I had similar ideas of batting Hughes at 5 or 6 but good players make teams hurt from dropping them early on and he didn't learn anything from the chance given. Perhaps he only has one game (attack) but if that is the case is he really for test cricket?

Thats probably my reasons for perhaps dropping him down the order, from the times i have seen him bat well, he's looked bloody good, and he did well against the South Africans, but since that time, England worked him over pretty easily & the Paki's bowled exceptionally well to him, well, they bowled well all day.

I think Hughes will have the temperament in the long run, but just needs to be able to adapt to certain conditions, i do believe he will be a Test cricketer, and whilst being an attacking batsman, he's not a complete slogger like with Dave Warner or even Gilly.

Watson has so far proved that you can be an attacking opening batsman, Michael Slater as well, Greenidge & Haynes made an artform from being attacking opening batsmen, but all those players also had definsive sides to their games when needed, Hughes just needs to work on that, he really needs to get some runs for the Blues this season imo, and when he gets in a bad patch, his only way out seem to be full on attack.

Another reason why i think they should have gone in with either Rogers or Jacques is because they were going to cover Katich, who is really your more traditonal type opening bat compared to Watson, and even though in great form, he is still pretty inexperienced as an opening bat, i would have preferred Had Hughes needed to come in, was to replace Watson and not Katich, mainly more for team balance, and stability up the top.

[mighty_west]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

Who is to say the Paki's wouldn't have batted worse? The conditions suited the bowlers, no matter how badly the Aussie's batted. The choice to bat was incorrect.

Who is to say we can't bowl them out cheaply tomorrow, then put on a decent score, only to be able to set a decent lead and bowl on a crumbling 5th day pitch?

[Before I Die]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

Who is to say we can't bowl them out cheaply tomorrow, then put on a decent score, only to be able to set a decent lead and bowl on a crumbling 5th day pitch?

Of course this could happen, and then Ponting's decision to bat will have been shown to be correct. But, at this point in time, with Australia all out for 127, it was the wrong decision. That doesn't mean it was unreasonable at the time, simply wrong.

I also doubt if the wicket will crumble on the last day given the amount of grass on it, but it may become more playable.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

Who is to say we can't bowl them out cheaply tomorrow, then put on a decent score, only to be able to set a decent lead and bowl on a crumbling 5th day pitch?

I doubt it. Pakistan batting conditions are most likely to be better on day 2. It would need a heroic bowling effort and some dud batting. If they did that today the score would have been under 100. Crumble - I don't think so, they haven't seen a green top like that in Australia for years.

[Mantis]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

What about the balls that didn't take wickets? Were they bad shots too? They were stiff on a few occasions.

The ball beat the bat on a few occassions, big deal.

Anyway who is arguing that the Paki's were unplayable or if the Aussies batted badly? The Paki's bowled reasonable in favorable conditions. My point was it was better to bowl than bat even without hindsight. Given a different Ponting decision, it doesn't matter if the Pakis would have made less or more, it was better to have them batting in conditions that will most likely get better.

It isn't like Ponting would have made the decision to bat by himself. He would have spoken to the senior members of the team who would he advised him on their thoughts. If he was a 'lone ranger' he deserves the criticism being placed upon him, but I doubt very much that to be the case.

I am finding extremely interesting the fact that all the media attention is on the decision to bat and is masking what was an insipid batting display. When your no.8 top scores and no.9 isn't too far behind it shows that the pitch wasn't a landmine. Batting on it required some application, some patience, a decent technique and a bit of luck. You can't do much about the luck (except make your own), but we were lacking in all the other factors.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

The batting has been poor (prone to collapses) for a while, at least yesterday they can argue its the greenest pitch they have played on for ages- not that its a great argument for the batting.

Who ever choose to bat, the decision was wrong, it showed too much faith in the bats and little in the quicks.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Australia vs Pakistan

BTW its a welcome change to see a pitch with something more in it for the bowlers. The batsman get it far too easy these days.