41 off 32 balls when 100 off 61 balls is needed?

[Wiji]

Problem solved.

1. Fakhar
2. Imam
3. Babar
4. Harris
5. Sarfraz (England Average: 69.50, S/R: 91.85)
6. Asif
7. Imad
8. Shadab
9. Hasan
10. Junaid
11. Afridi

Bench:
Malik (England Average: 13.6, S/R: 64.23)
Hafeez (England Average: 27.9, S/R: 69.14)
Abid
Faheem
Hasnain

 

[Yezir]

Selfish Azam wasnt any good either. Scoring 51 (52) is almost criminal when you are in need on 9 runs per over & it really dosent matter how well the guy at the other end is playing. its also your job to hit some boundaries. if you are going to leave everything on the other player then ofc you are going to loose games like these.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Actually according to batting order Sarfraz is no.7

If the top 6 can't chase a total, it is highly unlikely your no.7 will too regardless of being captain.

He's only batting at no 7 because he keeps changing the order. That is something else I can't understand, if he is any sort of a batsman, why is he sending Faheem or Imad ahead of himself? Does he really think they have the range of strokes to deal with quality death bowling?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

If sarfraz can't play as a hitter and needs to play up the order, then there's actually a better option in Rizwan who can perform that role better . Doesn't make this team on merit then.

 

[Snowflake]

If sarfraz can't play as a hitter and needs to play up the order, then there's actually a better option in Rizwan who can perform that role better . Doesn't make this team on merit then.

Rizwan is useless. A couple of innings cannot wash away what we've seen of him at the international stage.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Rizwan is crap. A couple of innings cannot wash away what we've seen of him at the international stage.

But Sarfaraz hasn't done much in ODI's either way wherever he has batted. He has scored only 1 ton against a non minnow and that was way back in 2016. Rizwan atleast deserved a chance in this series to show what he's made of. Dropping him after that Australian series was unfair.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

But Sarfaraz hasn't done much in ODI's either way wherever he has batted. He has scored only 1 ton against a non minnow and that was way back in 2016. Rizwan atleast deserved a chance in this series to show what he's made of. Dropping him after that Australian series was unfair.

Agreed. Rizwan has usually failed when he is sent low in the order where he is not suited to big hitting. As a top order batsman he is much more accomplished than Sarfraz, he can build a proper innings rather than jumping around looking like he could get out with every ball.

 

[W63L35]

You know things are bad when your number 6 is labelled with the he is limited excuse.

That is a question for selectors for selecting if he is truly selected and being played as #6. Looking at all #6 batsmen in last 5 years below, Sarfraz has batted only 4 times at #6. May be he was promoted because Malik/Hafeez are not playing?




But interestingly - the best player at #6 is not even part of the squad.

 

[coy0607]

So Sarfaraz Ahmed came in at number 6 with the score on 274/4 from 39.1 overs.

Pakistan needed 100 runs off 65 balls at just over 9 runs an over.

So whilst he was at the crease Sarfaraz faced half of the balls and scored 41 runs, with 2 fours.

Your thoughts on his innings today?

32 required off 18

Sarfraz, who has never been a hitter, takes a double of the 18th ball. 30 required off 17
Sarfraz takes a single off the next ball to get the 'hitter' Imad on strike. Great cricket. 29 of 16 balls

Imad plays a nothing shot to get out. Sarfaz fights till the end the only way he knows how, by rotating the strike.

You tell me who's fault this is?

To answer your question: Sarfraz played his game, and actually did a good job. Imad and Faheem failed the team

 

[W63L35]

Another thing that I am failing to understand if one looks at the scorecard above is ......that we are crucifying a batsman with a S/R of 128+ while putting very little or no blame on the batsmen who batted with a S/R in 70s - a major SIN in this day and age.

Pakistan needed 13 runs more to win.... now only if Imam had scored 8 more runs and Harris had score 5 more runs in the same number of balls..... we would have won! Is S/R of 97 and 105 asking for too much from Imam and Harris? Their S/R in 70s was the main reason Sarfarz'z S/R of 128 did not help at all!







I am sorry but we are shooting the wrong target - nothing new in the history of Pakistan cricket!

 

[Saj]

Sarfraz, who has never been a hitter,

So what's he doing batting at number 6 when the team needed nearly 10 an over.

 

[Saj]

That is a question for selectors for selecting if he is truly selected and being played as #6. Looking at all #6 batsmen in last 5 years below, Sarfraz has batted only 4 times at #6. May be he was promoted because Malik/Hafeez are not playing?

He wants to bat at 5 I believe, which is quite a scary thought.

 

[Saj]

Another thing that I am failing to understand if one looks at the scorecard above is ......that we are crucifying a batsman with a S/R of 128+ while putting very little or no blame on the batsmen who batted with a S/R in 70s - a major SIN in this day and age.

For the record, Haris and Imam's innings were very ordinary and not what Pakistan needed.

 

[waleed88]

He's only batting at no 7 because he keeps changing the order. That is something else I can't understand, if he is any sort of a batsman, why is he sending Faheem or Imad ahead of himself? Does he really think they have the range of strokes to deal with quality death bowling?

They're 'hard hitters'

Teams don't function like that anymore, but sadly we still do.

 

[W63L35]

He wants to bat at 5 I believe, which is quite a scary thought.

I accidentally set "not as captain" flag when I listed the stats for #6 batsmen in last 4 years above. So Sarfraz definitely batted much more than 4 times at #6.


Here are all inclusive stats for #6.
Not very impressive..... but I think the lack of a genuine all rounder is forcing team management to send him at #6.

 

[W63L35]

He wants to bat at 5 I believe, which is quite a scary thought.

Speaking of scary thought..... batsmen at #5 since 2014....

S/R of 92 and ave of 52 is excellent!

 

[W63L35]

One more piece of stats about Sarfraz's innings ......

Since 1/1/2015 .... 91 innings have been played in ODIs for Pakistan where a batsman scored 30-49 runs.

His was 9th best S/R. We are bashing a 9th BEST innings from 91 innings of similar score?
Strange!

 

[Saj]

Speaking of scary thought..... batsmen at #5 since 2014....

S/R of 92 and ave of 52 is excellent!

View attachment 91226

You know things are bad when a strike-rate of 92 is being lauded. This is Pakistan's problem when it comes to our batting approach, we are still stuck in an earlier era.

 

[Usman Chadda]

Sarfraz did what he knows best in that situation. He picked off Rashid for good runs in the latter stages.

We lost because Imad and Faheem were not good enough, and Asif got out at a crucial juncture. Can't even blame Imam or Haris much, as they were exposed to a completely different situation than the aforementioned lads.

 

[Farhan93]

You know things are bad when a strike-rate of 92 is being lauded. This is Pakistan's problem when it comes to our batting approach, we are still stuck in an earlier era.

what's babar and Imam's strike rate?

 

[gazza619]

Pakistan has never had a power hitter wicketkeeper except for Moin Khan and Kami and even they were inconistent at times.

Dont know why the hate for Sarfraz. Its not as if there is a Pant waiting to be picked. The alternative is Rizwan and he also is a similar type of player

 

[Savak]

You know things are bad when a strike-rate of 92 is being lauded. This is Pakistan's problem when it comes to our batting approach, we are still stuck in an earlier era.

I agree. But the problem arises when we hypocritically make excuses and exceptions based on player favorites. Everyone should be uniformally held to the same standard and be criticized for the same thing.

 

[Snowflake]

You know things are bad when a strike-rate of 92 is being lauded. This is Pakistan's problem when it comes to our batting approach, we are still stuck in an earlier era.

While I completely agree that we're lagging behind when it comes modern day batting approach, not recognizing a strike rate of 92 as a positive is stretching it a little too much.

Have your top 3 bat at 92 SR with some lower order hitting, you'll be crossing 300+ more often than not.

 

[Mainul]

Problem solved.

1. Fakhar
2. Imam
3. Babar
4. Harris
5. Sarfraz (England Average: 69.50, S/R: 91.85)
6. Asif
7. Imad
8. Shadab
9. Hasan
10. Junaid
11. Afridi

Bench:
Malik (England Average: 13.6, S/R: 64.23)
Hafeez (England Average: 27.9, S/R: 69.14)
Abid
Faheem
Hasnain

This is the best possible eleven right now

 

[Ronaldo7]

He wants to bat at 5 I believe, which is quite a scary thought.

How's it a scary thought??
He scored 300 in 5 matches against england at a strike rate of 90+ in 2016 at no.5.
A pleasant thought tbh.

 

[Junaid_ahmed]

Sarfraz indeed an awful batsman but saying that Rizwan is better is crime. Pakistan need #6/7 batsman & unfortunately we don't have in entire country.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I think most of the people's frustration is based on a two year track record of Sarfraz being miserable with the bat and the tactics employed.

They are just not looking at this innings in right context, and when I try to explain, they revert to questioning his place in the side.

Dissect the argument.

Not whether he deserved to play in the team or not (we already know the answer and deflecting it to that side is intellectual dishonesty).

The argument is Faheem, Imad and Asif were supposed to hit the big shots, while Sarfraz was supposed to bat at a SR higher than 100 and hit the odd 6 and 4?

Did he do his job or not?

 

[aukhan]

I think most of the people's frustration is based on a two year track record of Sarfraz being miserable with the bat and the tactics employed.

They are just not looking at this innings in right context, and when I try to explain, they revert to questioning his place in the side.

Dissect the argument.

Not whether he deserved to play in the team or not (we already know the answer and deflecting it to that side is intellectual dishonesty).

The argument is Faheem, Imad and Asif were supposed to hit the big shots, while Sarfraz was supposed to bat at a SR higher than 100 and hit the odd 6 and 4?

Did he do his job or not?

For a set no.6 batsmen, he failed to get the job done. Imad, Faheem were equally awful but no excuse for a set batsmen to not finish the game off and remain not out. If he is limited in his stroke play, then he shouldn't be batting at crucial no. 6.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think most of the people's frustration is based on a two year track record of Sarfraz being miserable with the bat and the tactics employed.

They are just not looking at this innings in right context, and when I try to explain, they revert to questioning his place in the side.

Dissect the argument.

Not whether he deserved to play in the team or not (we already know the answer and deflecting it to that side is intellectual dishonesty).

The argument is Faheem, Imad and Asif were supposed to hit the big shots, while Sarfraz was supposed to bat at a SR higher than 100 and hit the odd 6 and 4?

Did he do his job or not?

Whoever has decided that Imad and Faheem are capable of smashing quality death bowling needs to be committed. If that was the so called plan, it beggars belief. These guys are bowlers who can slog the odd ball big if it falls in their zone.

 

[KyoOne]

[MENTION=9]Saj[/MENTION] it should be 100 off 65 in the title.

On topic, Sarfraz was not the reason we lost, Asif and the two "all-rounders" at the other end have been selected for power hitting, and this failure was largely down to them.

Pinpointing Sarfraz as the culprit is not justified

 

[Grunge101]

We know hes the captain of the side, he will play in the WC obviously, and yes hes a run a ball player, not a smasher.

With that in mind, we have to make the best of our resources. All of us have to completely accept the fact that there is no one in the squad who can come and follow a 10runs/over average. So the ones coming in at 4,5,6 should be told to acclererate in the middle phase of the innings and not leave the power hitting to the lower order.

What that ultimately means is that we will be highly unlikely to post a 320 plus total or chase one down..no matter who does what..you cannot do that when you have no one who can reliably slog.

Sarfraz should be playing higher up the order, no if and buts there.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

We know hes the captain of the side, he will play in the WC obviously, and yes hes a run a ball player, not a smasher.

With that in mind, we have to make the best of our resources. All of us have to completely accept the fact that there is no one in the squad who can come and follow a 10runs/over average. So the ones coming in at 4,5,6 should be told to acclererate in the middle phase of the innings and not leave the power hitting to the lower order.

What that ultimately means is that we will be highly unlikely to post a 320 plus total or chase one down..no matter who does what..you cannot do that when you have no one who can reliably slog.

Sarfraz should be playing higher up the order, no if and buts there.

That bolded part probably deserves a thread in it's own right as it might give a helpful tip to the Pakistan 'think' tank.

 

[Rana]

Pathetic dismissal!

 

[MenInG]

Better outing in my view.

 

[Saj]

I agree. But the problem arises when we hypocritically make excuses and exceptions based on player favorites. Everyone should be uniformally held to the same standard and be criticized for the same thing.

Criticism should be given when it's deserved and praise given when it's also deserved.

Nobody should be exempt of criticism.

 

[Saj]

While I completely agree that we're lagging behind when it comes modern day batting approach, not recognizing a strike rate of 92 as a positive is stretching it a little too much.

Have your top 3 bat at 92 SR with some lower order hitting, you'll be crossing 300+ more often than not.

Strike-rate of 92 - well it depends on the match situation doesn't it and what the required run-rate is obviously.

 

[Saj]

Pakistan has never had a power hitter wicketkeeper except for Moin Khan and Kami and even they were inconistent at times.

Dont know why the hate for Sarfraz. Its not as if there is a Pant waiting to be picked. The alternative is Rizwan and he also is a similar type of player

Don't think raising a question about any player's innings is hate.

 

[Saj]

Pathetic dismissal!

Careful.

You'll be called a hater.

 

[Rana]

In a fair world, only one of either Malik, Sarfaraz and Hafeez should play in the XI. 2 will take us back to the stone ages

 

[Mamoon]

Does he not feel embarrassed when he watches the English wicket-keepers bat?