Bob Woolmer is no dunce. As an outsider, he doesn't suffer from as many delusions of grandeur as the Pakistani experts. He knows that a decision to prepare a seamer-friendly track could end up backfiring if the Indian pace trio runs through the Pakistan line-up. He also knows that the ICC Test Rankings are determined on the basis of the most recent home and away series results against all sides. Since the last Indo-Pak series in Pakistan was won by India 2-1, it makes sense to play safe and go for a drawn series. A drawn series would earn points for Pakistan and lose them for India.

Shoaib AKhtar is fast, but he is not accurate, nagging, or miserly most of the times. He produces one or two torrid troubling spells per series, but even that spell is not always enough to run through line-ups. Rana Naved, despite being a much improved honest trier, is just that - a much improved honest trier. Then there's Sami. Sami's bowling average, despite being almost a permanent fixture in the team, is more than Ajit Agarkar, who's been in and out of the Indian team. Gather ardent supporters of the "Pick Agarkar for Tests" school of thought and you would struggle to populate a dinner table. Yet, in Pakistan, which should ideally adhere to higher standards of pace bowling, you don't see many people advocating Sami's exclusion.

I am sorry, but having grown up watching the products of the pace assembly line-up, it is just pathetically tragic to see the self-image of Pakistan bowling having dipped to an extent where Sami and Rana are considered very good bowlers.

If Bob Woolmer isn't a dunce, then the ICC rankings should not matter to him. He will not be thinking of a draw before the series starts. And for that reason, the pitch for the first match must have been decided on by the curator, not the management of the Pakistan team.

I once heard Waqar Younis say that Pakistan had a pace-bowling tradition to beat that of anyone else. The fact is, apart from Waqar, Wasim, Imran, Fazal Mahmood and now Shoab, Pakistan have always struggled to find quality seamers, relying too much on the likes of Sami and Sarfraz (av. 32, SR 78).

Gaurav, its true that Sami is in the 'perennial potential' category. But for the rest of your analysis, I disagree and mainly because those other aspects have started changing in recent times.

Everyone knows that Shoaib, in past couple of years, had been about a good spell here or there..and then the familiar breakdowns, tantrums etc. But he has changed (unless proven otherwise) since the English series. Not only did he take the max wkts, he bowled a lot of overs (his first series where he bowled more than 100 overs!) and played all three matches (thats also a recent time record). So his attitude has changed, and remember, he did not take all those wkts in one good spell either.

Rana has never had a long enough run in test matches to be judged properly (and we all know he's not a Shoaib to burst on to the scene). But in ODIs, where he's had a long enough consistent run, he's currently ranked number 5 (behind the usual suspects) and moreover, forget the stats...you've to watch his game to know how impressive he has been in recent times.

If you're judging him by what he's doing here....then what can I say. Maybe call McGrath and ask him to bowl on this surface...lets see what he can do?

thelearner, isn't it a bit naive to assume, especially in the subcontinent, that the home team management has absolutely no influence over pitch preparation?

marcus, you may have a point.

worma, I am sorry if you feel I am being harsh on the pacers. I am a big fan of Pakistan cricket, so please pardon any excesses as emotional outbursts. Yes, Shoaib did very well against England, and if he continues that for another season or two, I will gladly eat my own words. But three tests is still too small a sample.

about rana, i do like him, but as i said, he has his limitations. he is not the "typical pakistani pacer" one has in mind. In any other team, I am sure he would stand out. but I find it a bit sad that he is standing out in the Pakistani team! let me stress, i do think he belongs in the team, on form as well as ability. but he isn't the guy who will strike terror in the hearts of the opposition, will he?

As for Sami, I am glad you agree. Why not give someone like Rao Iftikhar Anjum or Yasir Arafat more chances? Surely, they can't do worse than an average of 46!

Bang on target Gaurav. I am going to continue on this theme in a post.

Shoaib is a superb bowler. I thought Woolmer and the Pakistan team management handled him very well. The enormous talent has always been there. Hopefully the discipline has come. Better late than never.

Rana Naved - despite what his test average suggests - is a quality bowler because :-
1) He has a good cricketing mind.
2) He uses a lot of variation.

Sami is inconsistent with the line - some thing you cannot afford to in test cricket.

Please read Woolmer's comments and the curator's comments before jumping to conclusions and crowing about Pakistan's bowlers. The implication that Pakistan is wary, concerned or afraid of India's "pacers"
is , to put it mildly, a bit of a stretch. Don't be surprised if Zaheer plays in the next Test instead of Agarkar but perhaps that subject is best left for you and your fellow Indians to ponder.

Also, Sami and Rana are good enough to be part of a Pace Trio that combined well enough to beat England while India's Spinners were toying with S.Lanka. You have given us your opinion, now I'll give you mine; what's pathetically tragic is that I don't think RP Singh and Agarkar are good enough to bowl out Bangladesh on their own, but I'll bet my house that Sami and Rana would do far better against the same opposition. Just my opinion.

Gaurav: essentially you are saying the same as I think..that Shoaib has done well in the last series (and in a non-Shoaib and more professonal way) hence lets hold on to our judgments.

About Rana....sure he's not in the typical Pakistan pace bowler mould (but he's not a pace bowler..he's a swing medium pace bowler....and although Pak hasn't had too many of those, why not be proud of one if you have it in your ranks. Australia would love to have someone like him in these post-Ashes times..when they've realised that pace is not everything).

Anyway, my main complaint was against your categorisation of Rana as an 'honest trier'. Nope...a bowler ranked 5th in world cannot be honest trier. Not even in a Pakistani team.

Feroz, well put in regards to your Bangladesh remark. In fact, there are probably some Bangla pacers who could comfortably outdo Agarkar day in, day out; Mashrafe bin Mortaza comes to mind.

What I don't understand is, why don't Pakistan play another spinner? From what I've seen of Saqlain Mushtaq, he'd definately warrant a place in the Pakistani team when fit. India have done very well in fielding three contrasting spinners in the past; why can't Pakistan do so now?

About the Bangladesh bowlers being better than Agarkar and RP, I do not think too many of us commenters have seen enough of RP of Ranji cricket to pass a judgement on his actual worth. Neither have I, but I feel if given a chance he would not take 5½ years like Sami to reach a bowling average of 46 (or whatever, as pointed out by someone). Now that was MY opinion.

And another thought: Mortaza and company have never ever conceded over 400 runs without taking a wicket. Lots to learn on next Pakistan tour to B'desh.....

On R.P.Singh - The little that I have seen of him, I like the fact that he is accurate and focuses on line and length. He isnt very fast but I would have disciplined bowling above fast wayward bowling any day.

Will certainly be interesting to see how he goes in the future.

don't know where you get this impression of our opinion of Sami from, Inzi and Bob might be head over heals in love with him, but he's hardly ever found much credit from my side. And the media here too is never exactly glowing tributes on him either. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it's probably the media from outside Pakistan that have pampered him with non-stop mentions of how "talented" he is. Imran Khan remains a big admirer locally, but I think he is an exception. You go and talk to some one like Aamir Sohail for instance, and I can guarantee Sami wouldn't find much support from him.
Talk to Aqib Javed and he'll tell you just how much more talented and promising some one like Riaz Afridi or Mohammad Asif is compared to Sami. I was quite annoyed when Sami came out in the build up to this test and claimed he had been unlucky in his career, and some other lame excuses. At the end of the day he's played 25 odd tests now, and still averages in the 40s, any other bowler with such figures would have not managed such a constant fondness with the management. But just because Sami is a good fielder and can bat respectably, not to mention he is quick, and by nature he's a kind of bloke that fits along really nicely in the new team ethic, he's been getting away with having a terribly long un-purple patch. I'm hopeful though that with the emergence of the likes of Mohammad Asif and Riaz Afridi, Sami's days in the test side (unless he proves me wrong) are numbered.

Worma's made part of the clarification on Shoaib, a repetetion would be pointless. But some how I think Shoaib will remain one of those players whom people will never reach a consencus on. I don't think I'd want to be in his shoes, seems like whatever he does, it's still not enough. If people think he's a one great spell per series wonder, then alright, they can, at least it's better then having Zaheer Khan or Ajit Agarkar in your line up! Out of these, I know who I'd want to be in my side if I was a selector. And I have a hunch, if India had the option, and Shoaib was an Indian, they wouldn't think twice before giving him a place ahead zero great spells per series wonders Ajit Agarkar and Zaheer Khan.

On Rana, he is relatively new to test cricket. This is just his 8th test for that matter, and it's easy to forget this given he's played a lot more one-day cricket, where I may add, he's been almost our best bowler in the last season or two. His test average is still in the 50s, but by my reckoning it's coming down with every ball he's bowling, in the last two tests against England his figures were 2/63, 3/30, 2/76 and 0/55, a respectable if not spectacular return in its own right (especially given the flat nature of the surface he was faced with) but those who have seen the series them selves -you may ask English fans if you will- will tell you that at times he bowled a lot better then these figures might suggest. Either way, like Ang said with refrence to R P Singh, we probably haven't seen enough of him as yet, so the jury is still very much out on him, at least in test cricket.

Lastly, to put it frankly, I'm quite disturbed that some Indian fans have sighted the nature of the ptich in Lahore and from it derived a conclusion that Pakistan are afraid of losing or content with a drawn series. It's one thing to think Pakistan have a much malinged fast bowling attack, an attack that is obsessed with it's self image, bla bla bla, this might be partially right, given at least with refrence to Sami, and the yet to be fulfilled/realised potential of Rana, but why would you want to accuse us of being afraid of losing? No Pakistan side I have ever seen in my life is afraid or losing, not the least against a team like India, against whom we have historically had such a strong rivalry with. I know you probably didn't say we were afraid of losing, but you did indicate you thought we were "content with a draw", but this is one and the same thing in my view. I don't where you got this ideas from. Just because Inzi in the leadup to the test said he wanted a bouncy surface, and then didn't get one doesn't mean we were looking for a draw in the first place. You have to take into account the weather conditions that entailed Lahore in the build up to this test, they weren't exactly condusive of prepairing a good test match surface. I doubt many Indian curators, who are no less famous for making Lahore-like pitches, would have done a better job in the conditions.

I don't think either, that a lot of our Indian readers are aware that everything said and done by the home captain, coach and the local board, millions of fans you might add just for good measure, at the end of the day the head groundsman is still entitled to produce what ever kind of surface he wills. He has the last say. It is his pitch. The home team can give him all the advice in the world, but in the end he'll give a pitch he likes. As Bob Woolmer said the other day, it's his job, not the team's, and your can't over-interfere with it. And Haji Bashir, the head curator at the Gadaffi, I might add, has never really, in his 40 years at this job, shown any inclination of being a fan of bowler friendly surfaces. I'm not saying he purposely doctoared this surface to be the way it is, but just pointing out, for the sake of it, that generally he's a man who loves belters, and he's produced a few over the years. I also maintain that this Lahore pitch is not the flatest I have seen, the one in St John's Recreation Ground, Antigua is flatter in my opinion at least.

I'm also positive that if Inzi and co. had things their way completely (as in have the final and ultimate say in what the pitch would be like), they would have certainly opted for a pitch with just a tad more life then this one, as would have every captain in the world. Pakistan sides over the years invariably have been better bowling units than batting orders, and ideally you'd want the pitch to be conducive to your strengths. But the kind of pitch Inzi would want for our bowlers is also dictated in part by how our batsman would fare in those same conditions. Our top order is relatively inexperienced and is perceived to have problems facing a moving ball. Invariably this means Inzi, given an option, would not want much grass on a pitch, sure he'd like pace and bounce but not grass. The problem here is that you can never, absolutely never, have a lightening quick or very bouncy kind of pitch down here, nature doesn't allow this (not enough clay in the soil here apparently), so by asking a curator to make a bouncy pitch, you're affectively asking him for a miracle.

Conclusion: Just because we'd rather not have a pitch that doesn't expose our weakness(es) on the expense of exploiting our strength(s), it hardly means we are a negative side, or that we're scared of losing or happy with draws (no side in the world is IMHO).

Gaurav, I agree with you partially. I understand the motive of making a pitch like this. However I disagree that Shoaib just bowls 2-3 torrid spells and thats all. And see, judging any bowler on this pitch as good as judging a gardener's skill on a barren desert land!

Marcus, to reply to your (very good) question with regards to the second spinner, I believe the reasons are as follows; Woolmer and Inzi are of the opinion that 3 pacers and 1(genuine) spinner is the right combination to take into any Test(come hell or highwater).This echoes Wright and Ganguly's formula when they were in charge-remember how many times either Harbhajan or Kumble were dropped so that India could play 3 pacers?This was very evident on their away Test series, even in Pakistan. Secondly, (unfortunately) they seem to be enamoured with Shoaib Malik and think that he can play the part of second spinner( and makeshift opener). I think Malik is a very poor version of Saqlain and a ODI opener at best-I can't stand him- but that's my problem. Thirdly, they also think that Afridi can help out in the spinning department-though again he is NOT a Test match spinner, more suited to ODI's and faster, bouncier, wickets. You can see the faith that Woolmer has put in these 2 all rounders makes it virtually impossible that a pure spinner will be picked for Pakistan any time soon.
Anyway, the turn in Lahore is too slow even if we picked 4 Abdul Qadir's, and on a dry wicket any 2 spinners we pick will lose hands down to Harbhajan and Kumble, hence the 3 plus 1 plus 2 halves formula. Here's hoping Malik gets clonked on the head in the near future!! Cheers!

You know, Zainub, I've always thought Zaheer Kahn was quite a decent bowler. 111 wickets in 40 matches isn't a bad return for a country where only Kapil Dev and Javagal Srinath have tasted great success. Even Pathan's figures look ordinary if you take away his performances against the minnows.

I suppose it is a bit much to jump to the conclusion that ol' Haji Bashir wagged his tail to the demand of the Pakistani management that they wanted a flat track. I suppose it is a tempting jump to make as an Indian fan, for pakistani bashing still has its appeal:)

Yet, I seriously doubt anyone (in this case either of these teams) would play/ plan for a draw on the first match of the series. I have personally heard SauravGanguly say that they would not go for green tops (this before the previous tour), because the Indian attack could be pretty handy with a responsive pitch. Might be true, but doesn't make true the supposition that they would go for such a deathly boring pitch either. A strecth, for me.

I'm extremely wary of Shoaib Malik's credentials as a test batsman my self (at any place in the batting order let alone as an opener) but it's good that at least the team think tank are employing a consistent selection policy. The likes of Yasir Hameed, Imran Farhat, Taufeeq Umar, and before them Imran Nazir and Naved Latif didn't have this luxury of the coach and captain willing to give you plenty of time to prove your self. His bowling, action problems withstanding, can fetch occasional wickets (sometimes very important ones, like against England) but against teams like India, such good players of spin traditionally, he's always going to find it tough. He'll just have to contribute with the bat more strongly to silence some of his critics outside the team (they are plenty). I don't have anything against him as a person or even as a cricketer, he seems to have a great temperament, but he never really gives the impression that he will convert it into something long lasting. He is one of the best one-day players in the game though on the other hand. And since it is always good to see good players over come their shortcomings, I'd be more then happy to concede sometime in the future that my initial judgement of his test chances was wrong. I hope he repays the faith Inzi and Bob have shown in him and that he becomes the answer to Pakistan's opening problems.

On Afridi though, I disagree entirely. He might have hit a test 100 in just his last test, but I forever maintain that he is a bowling all rounder in either form of the game, so by my calculations we're already playing 2 genuine spinners and 3 quicks, it's just that we are lucky that one of those spinners has a test batting average of 30 odd, and strike rate of 80 odd, if I'm not wrong, so we can call him an all rounder, but doesn't change the fact that he is a leg spinner first and everything after wards.

Arshad Khan is also a more then decent spinner, with a very nice, clean action, and there is also Mansoor Amjad (the leg spinner) waiting in the wings. It is a good sign that Pakistan have such people in their lower ranks, but at present this combination of Afridi, Kaneria and Malik (occasionaly) is working more or less excellently and it will need either a dramatic loss of form or major injury (god forbid) for either to force a change in tactic. The others will just have to wait, like did Afridi and Kaneria themselves, waiting for Mushy and Saqlain to make way.

Zainub - At least at the top of the order Shoaib Malik isn't going to be persisted with after the Indian tour of Pakistan.

When Inzamam was asked by an Indian news channel who he thought should open in the first test - Dravid or Ganguly since both were non regular openers, he replied typically - 'well we are playing with just one regular opener too! On this and subcontinental pitches its not a big deal.'

So Shoaib Malik is being played as an extra option for Pakistan as a spinner and to take the shine off the new ball on subcontinental wickets. Its a very good strategy.

Expect a specialist opener to come back and Shoaib or Afridi to go out of the team when Pakistan tour England - most likely Shoaib Malik.

:D

Zainub, very considered reply to my post, though why you won't mention my name leaves me a little sad, give an old man a chance won't you? Now to business..
Afridi's Batting strike rate is near 100 in Tests isn't it? THAT's what he is first and foremost, not a Leg-Spinner, you do India's greats and Shane an injustice when you put him in a category of "Genuine" Leg-Spinner. My Idea of a Test Spinner is one who can bowl unchanged from one end for an ENTIRE Session-at least 15 or 17 overs on the trot, I don't think Afridi can do this now or ever. Yes , he can pick up crucial wickets and put enormous pressure on Batsmen but that does not make him a genuine Test Spinner. I keep my fingers crossed for Imran Farhat to return to the Team to open with Salman and I hope to see Afridi in the middle order for many years to come. I also pray for decent Sunshine and a pitch with bounce and carry at Faisalabad.

How does the "Self-Image" of Pakistan's Bowlers look to you now, Gaurav? With all due respect, next time, concentrate on you OWN pace bowlers, instead of using terms like "pathetic" and "tragic" to describe Pakistan's Pacers. Your Spinners took 34 of 44 against S. Lanka, yet you thought your Seamers would cut through Pakistan's "Tecnically Unsound" Batsmen-quote from Sehwag!!! Guess what? they didn't. Enjoy your Series Win over England where your spinners will take 46 out of 60 English wickets, in the mean time, Pakistan Supporters the World over will enjoy this one, if you don't mind.

if kiran morie is dismissed from his seat because of selection of poor team on the test series between england he would have thought gangulys feeling