Why do England always do so badly in Pakistan?

Let's put the initial question from PP on it's head.


Why do England find it so hard to win in Pakistan?

Since 1954...


England in Pakistan...


Won: 2 (61/62 and 2000/01) out of 8 Series.

It's probably down to conditions and the fact that English players in recent times have been of the s0ftc0ck variety.


Bar Nasser.

Nail on the head really Smerk, the English batsmen have the resilience of a wet tissue and the attention span of a 4-year-old whose eaten red Skittles and caned a can of Coke. Not the qualities you need for a boring, turgid pitch.

Or that the pitches have been flaaaaaaaaaaaaat.

Off the top of my head prior to the 2-0 win in 2005/6 - nobody had won more than 1 test?

We should have hammered Pakistan back in 2005. I watch the DVD and cringe at points where we held the match and let it slip through our fingers. Such is England Cricket, such is Life.

It's almost as bad as Saqlain Mushtaq running through England with the help of Sheppard.

Tres was in top form, he got chucked out by Shabby Armbent. That cost us the match, let alone another GOJo brain implosion. Tossers.

Shaun Udal and Ashley Giles.



Poorest spin duo to tour Pakistan?

Actually, Giles did pretty well in 2000/01.


Still was invisible on his final tour there.

Ian Salisbury toured in 2000/01.



Oh.dear.

A factor which England struggled quite often, was to shift well set batsmen.


E.g. Inzi, who I recall had a dream series last time England toured.

We need another Goughie in order to do well in places like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. Goughie was a smart little street fighter who always had a plan. He was immense in 2000-01 in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

I remember watching a DVD where Gough relived his only tour of Pakistan. He found it difficult at first, but started to realise that he had to take the pitch out of the equation. 10 wickets @ 26. Not bad.

He did even better in Sri Lanka if I remember correctly. 2 of the most underrated fast bowling performances of the last 20 years, I reckon. The pitches in that Pakistan series were just as flat as some of the pitches they've produced recently when Sri Lanka and Pakistan both scored 700, as well.

For a period in 2000-2001, only Mcgrath was a better fast bowler than Gough.

Pakistan have had far better bowlers.

...and even if ENG had an outside chance the patriotic umpiring took care of that.

PlanetPakistan wrote:
...and even if ENG had an outside chance the patriotic umpiring took care of that.

Step forward, Shakoor Rana and Shakeel Khan.....

In my memory:

1983: Willis, Botham and Dilley all broke down at the same time.

1987: Shakoor and Shakeel won it for Pakistan

2000: England won, thanks to good bowling from Gough and Giles

2005: England got arrogant, went on tour with three key men carrying injuries, and were out-bowled by Shoaib, generally outplayed by Pakistan and out-thought by Woolmer.

Rob I wrote:In my memory:
1983: Willis, Botham and Dilley all broke down at the same time.

Just before my time

1987: Shakoor and Shakeel won it for Pakistan

Pak had the better side so there really was no need for it but yes it was blatent one sided umpiring. Even the aftermath - can you imagine the ICC putting up with an umpire carrying on like that today?

2000: England won, thanks to good bowling from Gough and Giles

Pak were still the better side but that team of Nas' really fought hard to hang in and got rewards in the dark at the last.

2005: England got arrogant, went on tour with three key men carrying injuries, and were out-bowled by Shoaib, generally outplayed by Pakistan and out-thought by Woolmer.

Could still have been 1-0 up after that first test. Missed Jones terribly from just a few months before.

2 out of 8 series is not the worst record considering they were usually better than us...

It was the batting that let England down in that first test of 2005. Weren't we bowled out in the last innings for 160 odd chasing about 200? I seem to remember we were cruising at one point as well.

Henry wrote:It was the batting that let England down in that first test of 2005. Weren't we bowled out in the last innings for 160 odd chasing about 200? I seem to remember we were cruising at one point as well.

Here you go Trev....

All out 175, chasing 198

Dingdong got some good first-innings runs that series as I recall, averaging over 50.

Rob I wrote:

Henry wrote:It was the batting that let England down in that first test of 2005. Weren't we bowled out in the last innings for 160 odd chasing about 200? I seem to remember we were cruising at one point as well.

Here you go Trev....

All out 175, chasing 198

Dingdong got some good first-innings runs that series as I recall, averaging over 50.

Without looking at the scorecard I would bet good money that he was totally absent in the 2nd innings when the pressure was on.

Edit: Just looked at the scorecard and whilst you could argue that he wasn't as inept as the rest of them, 31 is still shite.

Ian Bell was actually in danger of turning into a world class batsman at that point. the problem is, he's still exactly the same player now as he was then. Cook as well, since his debut in India a few months later. Actually, I reckon Cook was a better player then than he is now. I can't really think of too many young England players in recent times who have improved since the age of 21-22. Broad is probably the only one, but you can tell almost straight away that he's got more character than the others.

At least Bellend can't play the 40 average card anymore.