66-1 or 40-0 in Powerplay: Where would you rather be?

[Rana]

Comparing Test cricket to T20 cricket... Can't say I'm surprised since you're the same guy that unironically want or wanted to make Asif the captain of our T20 side.

Well you are the guy who said Rizwan is better than Jos Butler and Jason Roy combined because his batting average is better than both put together

 

[Hextro]

If the middle order is the weakest, why should the best players not be there.

There may not be that many specialist openers besides Fakhar and Shan, but as we saw today, the powerplay is the easiest time to bat and these players are more likely to maximise their returns during this time compared to if they were in the middle order evidently.

At the very least, Babar at one down is not a radical change but arguably a proactive one.

I have already mentioned that Babar and Rizwan excel as openers, pushing them down the order will downgrade their game and put more pressure on Pakistan's batting lineup.

Neither Fakhar nor Shan are good openers, I thought I had made that clear already. One practice match doesn't mean Shan is a good T20 player lol.

 

[Hextro]

Well you are the guy who said Rizwan is better than Jos Butler and Jason Roy combined because his batting average is better than both put together

When? I never said Rizwan is better than them. I said that those three batsmen are really good at fulfilling their roles on specific pitches.

 

[Rana]

When? I never said Rizwan is better than them. I said that those three batsmen are really good at fulfilling their roles on specific pitches.

I can find that quote of yours, bump it and embarrass you. Hence I suggest that you post responsibly here.

It’s another dumb thing to say both Babar and Rizwan are not naturally middle order batsmen

Don’t let your agenda pile up the ridiculous statements and expose your lack of understanding

 

[Hextro]

I can find that quote of yours, bump it and embarrass you. Hence I suggest that you post responsibly here.

It’s another dumb thing to say both Babar and Rizwan are not naturally middle order batsmen

Don’t let your agenda pile up the ridiculous statements and expose your lack of understanding

Bump the thread buddy. Your hatred for Rizwan and Babar has been clouding your judgment for over a year now. Still want the overweight fixer back on the team? Perhaps we can also call up Imran Nazir and Shahid Afridi since they'll perform better than your hero.

 

[Messiah]

40-0 for sure. With wickets in hand, you can really up the run rate after 40 overs.

 

[Rana]

Bump the thread buddy. Your hatred for Rizwan and Babar has been clouding your judgment for over a year now. Still want the overweight fixer back on the team? Perhaps we can also call up Imran Nazir and Shahid Afridi since they'll perform better than your hero.

Sharjeel Khan would cream the living daylights out of pacers on these wickets

Prove me wrong otherwise

 

[Hextro]

Sharjeel Khan would cream the living daylights out of pacers on these wickets

Prove me wrong otherwise

Don't need to. He isn't and will never be on the team again.

 

[Kroll]

Rizba would take another 4 overs to get to 66-70 runs from their 40-0 so its a no-brainer really.

 

[shaz619]

I have already mentioned that Babar and Rizwan excel as openers, pushing them down the order will downgrade their game and put more pressure on Pakistan's batting lineup.

Neither Fakhar nor Shan are good openers, I thought I had made that clear already. One practice match doesn't mean Shan is a good T20 player lol.

Both Fakhar and Shan are openers by nature, so if either are to play or selected then it is futile playing them in any position other then those slots, the management clearly think Shan is good enough to be in the team and took it a bit further by giving him the no.3 spot. Asking players who are not suited or skilled to play in certain positions to accommodate others comes with risks. I can agree that Riswan’s capabilities revolve around opening but that’s not the case with a multi dimensional player like Babar and an obvious whole he can support which is the middle order. Or else Pakistan’s batting is gambling on two players rather then maximising the strengths of their batting line up as a whole.

 

[Technics 1210]

Sharjeel Khan would cream the living daylights out of pacers on these wickets

Prove me wrong otherwise

Do you have proof SK would cream the living daylights out of these pacers on Oz wickets? Stats perhaps? If no, then stop asking for proof on the contrary.

 

[CommonIndian]

Sharjeel Khan would cream the living daylights out of pacers on these wickets

Prove me wrong otherwise

Who?? Sharjeel Khan... ....Stop day dreaming and Living in Cuckoos land..Why are you guys so inclined towards spot fixers...He is just an unfit domestic unfit player...There are no one in your country who can do that job currently..Babar and Rizwan are the best you have got who are of limited ability.Make peace with it... Sharjeel it seems

 

[Saj]

Runs over wickets in hand any day of the week.

However it seems that Babar and Rizwan have very little faith in the middle-order and their approach seems to be one of them facing as many balls as possible even if it is only a 20-over match.

 

[Rana]

Runs over wickets in hand any day of the week.

However it seems that Babar and Rizwan have very little faith in the middle-order and their approach seems to be one of them facing as many balls as possible even if it is only a 20-over match.

But either way, Pakistan still manage to get 160

 

[Ashmal]

All it needs is to split Babar and Rizwan. Today also, only one ( Shan ) was the main aggressor. Rizwan could open with Fakhar with Babar coming after them. Babar can easily find gaps and tick the scoreboard along. Rizwan is a limited batter and cannot do that compared to Babar.

That's what should happen ideally....Fakhar, Rizwan and Babar.

But still it wouldn't solve all of Pakistan's issues....what they need is a reliable finisher who could strike at 150+ at #6 or #7.

Unfortunately, the likes of Khushdil, Iftikhar and Asif Ali who were picked for this particular role have failed miserably.

 

[PakPremi]

But either way, Pakistan still manage to get 160

So others opening did not resolve the issue, because the issue is with middle order.

 

[shariqnoor]

If I had a batting lineup of India, Australia, SA, England, I'd always be wanting to 66/2 or even 66/3 let alone 66/1. With a minnow batting lineup like Pakistan, a 45/0 in the Powerplay is much more effective as it raises the floor.

 

[Rana]

If I had a batting lineup of India, Australia, SA, England, I'd always be wanting to 66/2 or even 66/3 let alone 66/1. With a minnow batting lineup like Pakistan, a 45/0 in the Powerplay is much more effective as it raises the floor.

Says the supporter of a team that has two batsman averaging 40+ and ranked 1 and 3

 

[hitthestump]

Do you have proof SK would cream the living daylights out of these pacers on Oz wickets? Stats perhaps? If no, then stop asking for proof on the contrary.

Lol. Makes a claim then asks others to bring the proof this the level of intellect we are dealing with sadly.

 

[Saj]

But either way, Pakistan still manage to get 160

Which won't be enough most of the time.

 

[Rana]

Lol. Makes a claim then asks others to bring the proof this the level of intellect we are dealing with sadly.

Go search it up

Sharjeel average 50 with 3x50 and a top score of 79 in Australia against Australia in the 2016/17 ODI series

His strike rate was 115.0 in the series, thats 12 runs below Mohammad Rizwan’s career strike rate in T20i

 

[WengerOut]

Go search it up

Sharjeel average 50 with 3x50 and a top score of 79 in Australia against Australia in the 2016/17 ODI series

His strike rate was 115.0 in the series, thats 12 runs below Mohammad Rizwan’s career strike rate in T20i

He had a fantastic innings at WACA while chasing a big score.IIRC Babar sucked out all the momentum and later scored a century accelarating when the match was already a lost cause.

 

[Rana]

He had a fantastic innings at WACA while chasing a big score.IIRC Babar sucked out all the momentum and later scored a century accelarating when the match was already a lost cause.

Signs of what was to come really

Babar never really had it in him

He just wasn’t that guy. He just wasn’t

 

[Jazx]

Why would you be 120/8 when you have Babar at 1 down?

Will babar keep the wickets intact from both ends by playing at number 3

 

[Rana]

40-0 for sure. With wickets in hand, you can really up the run rate after 40 overs.

Mela loot lia bhai ne

 

[atomberg]

I can find that quote of yours, bump it and embarrass you. Hence I suggest that you post responsibly here.

It’s another dumb thing to say both Babar and Rizwan are not naturally middle order batsmen

Don’t let your agenda pile up the ridiculous statements and expose your lack of understanding

So Afif Hossain opened the innings for Bangladesh or not?

 

[Jazx]

Mela loot lia bhai ne

Maybe he is talking about 92 world cup

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Which won't be enough most of the time.

If the boundary line is big then this is not a bad score.

I don't think we will see those 180 and 190 and those 200's if the boundary line are big in this WC in Australia.

 

[Technics 1210]

Go search it up

Sharjeel average 50 with 3x50 and a top score of 79 in Australia against Australia in the 2016/17 ODI series

His strike rate was 115.0 in the series, thats 12 runs below Mohammad Rizwan’s career strike rate in T20i

So not only are you relying on 8 year old stats, but cross format stats too.

Past performance is not an indication of future performance.

 

[shariqnoor]

Says the supporter of a team that has two batsman averaging 40+ and ranked 1 and 3

While having the rest of the batting lineup that would struggle to outdo Ireland. Try to understand the context of the posts before posting.

 

[Technics 1210]

To answer the OP, I would take 66-1 any day of the week, middle order or no middle order.

1 run in the PP phase is equivalent of 1.5/2 runs after PP phase. [impact runs]

Even if you take Pakistan’s middle order fiasco, openers should be capitalising on fielding restrictions. It’s a no brainer.

 

[Rana]

So not only are you relying on 8 year old stats, but cross format stats too.

Past performance is not an indication of future performance.

Isn’t that why Iftikhar is in the team? Performances from 3 years ago?

 

[Technics 1210]

Isn’t that why Iftikhar is in the team? Performances from 3 years ago?

Exactly proving the point! (I do not support Chacha's inclusion either).

 

[Rana]

Exactly proving the point! (I do not support Chacha's inclusion either).

I’m pretty sure Sharjeel can do what Shan did today.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I think a lot intellecutal dishonesty is going on in this thread.

Babar and Rizwan have chased 3 200+ scores against unquestionable attacts and their supporters don't want to hear anything about the type of attack or which team it was.

The argument is Babar and Rizwan are good enough to do it 3 times, they must be good to do it against good teams also.

If we are to buy this argument, we are essentially saying that the "openers are the best Pakistan can offer at this time" which is why they keep opening.

We were also to made believe that IF any other openers opened we would be 10-2 in no time and 40-0 or 45-0 is the best we have to offer.

Now we have changed openers in a practice game and got 66-1, they are arguing against themselves?

Type of attack - I thought it didn't matter ?

We will be 10-2 every time - We weren't 10-2 ?

The sample size is too short - How do you increase the sample size when the "coveted duo of Babar and Rizwan" is put on a pedestal and the middle order is asked to overcome the problems created by slow batting at top.


We have seen a solution today (albeit end score wasn't high ) but PP was high enough.

Now we are saying but but but?

Clear as daylight there are certain fans who think Babar and Rizwan are inheritors of Pakistan team and they should do what they like while the rest of the team has to fall in line.

Babar and Rizwan haven't earned any privilege.

They need to start winning knockout games by themselves to be able to keep opening and not be questioned.

 

[topspin]

40/0

Bro comon, April fool’s day was 6 months ago.

 

[Technics 1210]

I still cannot get over Pakistan’s PP score in the Asia Cup final. 37/2 of which 10 runs were extras in the very first over. So a mere 27 runs at the cost of 2 wickets.

 

[Farabi]

I think a lot intellecutal dishonesty is going on in this thread.

Babar and Rizwan have chased 3 200+ scores against unquestionable attacts and their supporters don't want to hear anything about the type of attack or which team it was.

The argument is Babar and Rizwan are good enough to do it 3 times, they must be good to do it against good teams also.

If we are to buy this argument, we are essentially saying that the "openers are the best Pakistan can offer at this time" which is why they keep opening.

We were also to made believe that IF any other openers opened we would be 10-2 in no time and 40-0 or 45-0 is the best we have to offer.

Now we have changed openers in a practice game and got 66-1, they are arguing against themselves?

Type of attack - I thought it didn't matter ?

We will be 10-2 every time - We weren't 10-2 ?

The sample size is too short - How do you increase the sample size when the "coveted duo of Babar and Rizwan" is put on a pedestal and the middle order is asked to overcome the problems created by slow batting at top.


We have seen a solution today (albeit end score wasn't high ) but PP was high enough.

Now we are saying but but but?

Clear as daylight there are certain fans who think Babar and Rizwan are inheritors of Pakistan team and they should do what they like while the rest of the team has to fall in line.

Babar and Rizwan haven't earned any privilege.

They need to start winning knockout games by themselves to be able to keep opening and not be questioned.

There is no intellectual dishonesty. And don’t be fooled by one off warmup game against non regular new ball bowlers. Even then, Powerhitter Haider had middling SR. And Shan is not Buttler not even in domestics.

There is currently no Pak batsman with better SR in the PP vs what Babar/Rizwan have delivered. This myth has been debunked serval times. Sharjeel and Fakhar also have SRs in the 120s in the PP. In recent PCL, Sharjeel and Fakhar accelerated from overs 7-10. Yet they don’t even average half of Babar/Rizwan.

 

[Energy]

I think a lot intellecutal dishonesty is going on in this thread.

Babar and Rizwan have chased 3 200+ scores against unquestionable attacts and their supporters don't want to hear anything about the type of attack or which team it was.

The argument is Babar and Rizwan are good enough to do it 3 times, they must be good to do it against good teams also.

If we are to buy this argument, we are essentially saying that the "openers are the best Pakistan can offer at this time" which is why they keep opening.

We were also to made believe that IF any other openers opened we would be 10-2 in no time and 40-0 or 45-0 is the best we have to offer.

Now we have changed openers in a practice game and got 66-1, they are arguing against themselves?

Type of attack - I thought it didn't matter ?

We will be 10-2 every time - We weren't 10-2 ?

The sample size is too short - How do you increase the sample size when the "coveted duo of Babar and Rizwan" is put on a pedestal and the middle order is asked to overcome the problems created by slow batting at top.


We have seen a solution today (albeit end score wasn't high ) but PP was high enough.

Now we are saying but but but?

Clear as daylight there are certain fans who think Babar and Rizwan are inheritors of Pakistan team and they should do what they like while the rest of the team has to fall in line.

Babar and Rizwan haven't earned any privilege.

They need to start winning knockout games by themselves to be able to keep opening and not be questioned.

You can easily work out the sample size. Compare the 3 years of openers before Babar and Rizwan and if they are better, then you're right to ask them to step down. If they're not better, then that means Babar and Rizwan are the best at that position.

Babar and Rizwan opened because the regulars were failing. Now that they have started to do well and stabilized the opening position, we have posters asking for them to be changed to 'try' out others. This is hypocrisy.

 

[hitthestump]

They need to start winning knockout games by themselves to be able to keep opening and not be questioned.

Lollllll, and of course you wouldn't start whinging about some other variable when they (inevitably) do it.

I'm sorry that Rizwan and Babar are keeping our Pakistani Buttler and Maxwell's from being selected in domestics )

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Lollllll, and of course you wouldn't start whinging about some other variable when they (inevitably) do it.

I'm sorry that Rizwan and Babar are keeping our Pakistani Buttler and Maxwell's from being selected in domestics )

Again, the entire assumption is flawed from you.

You argue there is

No one in Pakistan who can do better than 45-0 in 6 overs.

When it happens, you say but it was a practice game, the type of attack.

Sir, if you are NOT willing to accept that 66-1 happened and you argue with type of attack why cant we also not accept 200 happened against Junior Dala ?

I mean you cant eat your cake and have it too.

 

[happydavy]

It's a misleading question, unless you are saying 10/10 times the option is between 66/1 vs 40/0. If 66/1 is going to be in 2 out of 10 matches vs 40/0 in 7 out of 10, then i will take 40/0.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

You can easily work out the sample size. Compare the 3 years of openers before Babar and Rizwan and if they are better, then you're right to ask them to step down. If they're not better, then that means Babar and Rizwan are the best at that position.

Babar and Rizwan opened because the regulars were failing. Now that they have started to do well and stabilized the opening position, we have posters asking for them to be changed to 'try' out others. This is hypocrisy.

There is NO need to work out the sample size.

The entire argument which has been repeated so times is there is NO ONE IN PAKISTAN who can do better than 45-0 in 6.

Previously, you REFUSED to entertain that thought and REFUSED to even try anyone new maintaining a high posture that it SIMPLY isnt possible.

Now when just a whiff of perhaps false hope is there. I am not even saying that its going to happen regularly. But its a throwback to the norm. Something positive happened.

Pakistan hit 66-1 in 6.

Yet you have your head so much stuck in the doormat, that you NOW REFUSE to acknowledge it by changing goalposts?

If that isn't fear what is?

To quote Harvey Specter from Suits

"So if you want to quit, go ahead. Do it. But its not because of what happened on the cricket pitch. Its because you cant come to terms with the fact that "Your heroes might not be that good for Power Play After all".

 

[Rana]

It's a misleading question, unless you are saying 10/10 times the option is between 66/1 vs 40/0. If 66/1 is going to be in 2 out of 10 matches vs 40/0 in 7 out of 10, then i will take 40/0.

Does it matter how many times? You would prefer 40-0 seven out of 10 times?

The lengths some people would go in unbelievable!

 

[Energy]

There is NO need to work out the sample size.

The entire argument which has been repeated so times is there is NO ONE IN PAKISTAN who can do better than 45-0 in 6.

Previously, you REFUSED to entertain that thought and REFUSED to even try anyone new maintaining a high posture that it SIMPLY isnt possible.

Now when just a whiff of perhaps false hope is there. I am not even saying that its going to happen regularly. But its a throwback to the norm. Something positive happened.

Pakistan hit 66-1 in 6.

Yet you have your head so much stuck in the doormat, that you NOW REFUSE to acknowledge it by changing goalposts?

If that isn't fear what is?

To quote Harvey Specter from Suits

"So if you want to quit, go ahead. Do it. But its not because of what happened on the cricket pitch. Its because you cant come to terms with the fact that "Your heroes might not be that good for Power Play After all".

You want me to acknowledge that Shan and Haider will give us 66 runs on average in the powerplay?

Based on what they did in one match, on a practice wicket?

The OP has a hate and bias against Rizwan so I can understand his stupidity of opening this thread, but I'm sure you're one of the sensible posters around and can think rationally.

Babar/Rizwan 60/0 after 6 chasing 207 against WI
Babar/Rizwan 64/0 after 6 chasing 203 against SA

Here you go. I've also given you 2 innings in recent past that these guys have score at 10rpo without losing a wicket.

 

[Rana]

You want me to acknowledge that Shan and Haider will give us 66 runs on average in the powerplay?

Based on what they did in one match, on a practice wicket?

The OP has a hate and bias against Rizwan so I can understand his stupidity of opening this thread, but I'm sure you're one of the sensible posters around and can think rationally.

Babar/Rizwan 60/0 after 6 chasing 207 against WI
Babar/Rizwan 64/0 after 6 chasing 203 against SA

Here you go. I've also given you 2 innings in recent past that these guys have score at 10rpo without losing a wicket.

And your stupidity to attack me

When did I say Haider and Shan would do this every time? All it proves is that ANYONE can open and do a better job than the two TuK Tuk merchants. Which is so embarrassing for those who claim they are the best openers in the world let alone Pakistan.

And if you want to get personal with me every time, let’s go for it.

 

[Kroll]

Does it matter how many times? You would prefer 40-0 seven out of 10 times?

The lengths some people would go in unbelievable!

Some people seem to think this is a trick question.

 

[Rana]

Some people seem to think this is a trick question.

Not surprised. Our current opening combination have made the possibility of 66-1 in the powerplay a fantasy. But it’s so embarrassing to see two below par T20i cricketers play so freely and score runs at a canter against a decent bowling attack.

The fans of the current combination are suffering from a Stockholm syndrome of their abusive tuk tuk in the powerplay. They don’t want to accept aggressive intent as an alternative

 

[ads101]

This was down to one batsman. Haider and Shadab scored slower than Rizwan and babar. Yet no one wants to give him credit because it’s masood haha.

If you go by this match, you open with masood and maybe Babar at 3. How many would take this option? Most of the guys attacking babar and Rizwan are even more opposed to masood. It was clear to me in general masood was trying to show more intent even in the England series, he was just failing.

Fakhar has had 50 games as opener and done badly hardly scoring fast in power play. If anything he starts slowly and speeds up later. That isn’t his game to go aggressive early on. Sharjeel is the only one who can. But we have to face reality, he’s not in the team because he fixed. That’s his fault. His fitness or mediocre domestic form recently doesn’t help, but we all know he’d have been selected regardless anyway had he not fixed.

I am personally open to play Rizwan and masood as openers with babar as 3. The issue is it feels too late to experiment with that now.

 

[Energy]

This was down to one batsman. Haider and Shadab scored slower than Rizwan and babar. Yet no one wants to give him credit because it’s masood haha.

If you go by this match, you open with masood and maybe Babar at 3. How many would take this option? Most of the guys attacking babar and Rizwan are even more opposed to masood. It was clear to me in general masood was trying to show more intent even in the England series, he was just failing.

Fakhar has had 50 games as opener and done badly hardly scoring fast in power play. If anything he starts slowly and speeds up later. That isn’t his game to go aggressive early on. Sharjeel is the only one who can. But we have to face reality, he’s not in the team because he fixed. That’s his fault. His fitness or mediocre domestic form recently doesn’t help, but we all know he’d have been selected regardless anyway had he not fixed.

I am personally open to play Rizwan and masood as openers with babar as 3. The issue is it feels too late to experiment with that now.

Top poster from the good old days of PP. Glad to see you're still posting.

Don't read too much into the context of these threads. You're talking way too much sense for them to decipher.

 

[Rana]

Top poster from the good old days of PP. Glad to see you're still posting.

Don't read too much into the context of these threads. You're talking way too much sense for them to decipher.

What’s there to decipher

66-1 was there for everyone to see. This isn’t a code sent by Zodiac to the San Francisco chronicle.

Why are defeatist mindset people who advocate for Fakhar Zaman to bat at 4 ( ) so emotionally hurt by the fact that their theory about Babar and Rizwan doing Pakistan a huge favour in the powerplay was shattered by Shan Masood of all people?

 

[Energy]

What’s there to decipher

66-1 was there for everyone to see. This isn’t a code sent by Zodiac to the San Francisco chronicle.

Why are defeatist mindset people who advocate for Fakhar Zaman to bat at 4 ( ) so emotionally hurt by the fact that their theory about Babar and Rizwan doing Pakistan a huge favour in the powerplay was shattered by Shan Masood of all people?

For those seeing with eyes, and have brains to know that this was a warmup- this score was nothing special. For those seeing with their back side, this score is something to fantasize about.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

It's simply easier to bat when the field is up.

There is no SCIENCE in this.

And why don't other teams score 50-0 regularly? Because they take risks.

Why are Babar and Rizwan able to get high averages and partnerships? Because they refuse to take any risk.

Yesterday Masood took risks.

Why?

It's easier to bat in Powerplay when field is up for ANYONE.

Keep reading till this sinks in.

 

[Rana]

For those seeing with eyes, and have brains to know that this was a warmup- this score was nothing special. For those seeing with their back side, this score is something to fantasize about.

I see. So no one had eyes to see and brains to know when RizBar are statpadding against the c teams…and bottling it in the crunch games?

Only RizBar fans have eyes to see…and brains to know.

The same kind of brains that you need to suggest Fakhar Zaman to bat at 4

 

[Rana]

It's simply easier to bat when the field is up.

There is no SCIENCE in this.

And why don't other teams score 50-0 regularly? Because they take risks.

Why are Babar and Rizwan able to get high averages and partnerships? Because they refuse to take any risk.

Yesterday Masood took risks.

Why?

It's easier to bat in Powerplay when field is up for ANYONE.

Keep reading till this sinks in.

Wait wait wait…

But you do not have eyes to see
Or brains to know

You are a delusional Unicorn

 

[Energy]

I see. So no one had eyes to see and brains to know when RizBar are statpadding against the c teams…and bottling it in the crunch games?

Only RizBar fans have eyes to see…and brains to know.

The same kind of brains that you need to suggest Fakhar Zaman to bat at 4

That's almost 99% much more brain cells than suggesting Asif be made captain for Pakistan. The guy who now plays the ball with his bat and his helmet.

 

[Rana]

That's almost 99% much more brain cells than suggesting Asif be made captain for Pakistan. The guy who now plays the ball with his bat and his helmet.

Asif Ali over Babar/Rizwan and Shadab as captain

There

I said it again.

Alhamdolillah I know this game well.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Between the 2, Babar is actually the weaker batsman. Last 2 years, strikes at 114 in T20Is, even less in PSL.

He is not an elite T20 batter. If he survives PP, he can attack medium pace bowling through the middle and the death BUT he is not an elite hitter of 140 + kph bowling
and his overall strike rate against spin is 107 or so.

Rizwan has a slightly better strike rate in the powerplay last 2 years and his game against spin is OK but stronger than Babar's even if he cannot murder medium pacers at the same rate.

If you want one anchor, Rizwan will be a better choice.

But will Pakistan drop their captain ? And what are the alternatives?

Haider Ali is risky. He did well in the warmup but he doesn't have a great record so far.

The only real alternatives are Fakhar or Shan Masood. In last 2 years in all T20's , Shan strikes at 127 and averages 45. Also , he has a strong backfoot game which is ideal for Australia.

If you think Rizwan and Shan will give you 66/1 consistently, then you are deluded but it might work better than Babar and Rizwan

 

[atomberg]

I think a lot intellecutal dishonesty is going on in this thread.

Babar and Rizwan have chased 3 200+ scores against unquestionable attacts and their supporters don't want to hear anything about the type of attack or which team it was.

The argument is Babar and Rizwan are good enough to do it 3 times, they must be good to do it against good teams also.

If we are to buy this argument, we are essentially saying that the "openers are the best Pakistan can offer at this time" which is why they keep opening.

We were also to made believe that IF any other openers opened we would be 10-2 in no time and 40-0 or 45-0 is the best we have to offer.

Now we have changed openers in a practice game and got 66-1, they are arguing against themselves?

Type of attack - I thought it didn't matter ?

We will be 10-2 every time - We weren't 10-2 ?

The sample size is too short - How do you increase the sample size when the "coveted duo of Babar and Rizwan" is put on a pedestal and the middle order is asked to overcome the problems created by slow batting at top.


We have seen a solution today (albeit end score wasn't high ) but PP was high enough.

Now we are saying but but but?

Clear as daylight there are certain fans who think Babar and Rizwan are inheritors of Pakistan team and they should do what they like while the rest of the team has to fall in line.

Babar and Rizwan haven't earned any privilege.

They need to start winning knockout games by themselves to be able to keep opening and not be questioned.

Babar and Rizwan scored 150 runs in 15 overs against England batting first, and Pak won by 30 runs, even though Livingstone scored a 100 off 40 odd balls.

They went for runs because Pakistan didn’t have world famous finishers like Kush, Asif or chacha.

 

[Gayle_Force]

I think a lot intellecutal dishonesty is going on in this thread.

Babar and Rizwan have chased 3 200+ scores against unquestionable attacts and their supporters don't want to hear anything about the type of attack or which team it was.

The argument is Babar and Rizwan are good enough to do it 3 times, they must be good to do it against good teams also.

If we are to buy this argument, we are essentially saying that the "openers are the best Pakistan can offer at this time" which is why they keep opening.

We were also to made believe that IF any other openers opened we would be 10-2 in no time and 40-0 or 45-0 is the best we have to offer.

Now we have changed openers in a practice game and got 66-1, they are arguing against themselves?

Type of attack - I thought it didn't matter ?

We will be 10-2 every time - We weren't 10-2 ?

The sample size is too short - How do you increase the sample size when the "coveted duo of Babar and Rizwan" is put on a pedestal and the middle order is asked to overcome the problems created by slow batting at top.


We have seen a solution today (albeit end score wasn't high ) but PP was high enough.

Now we are saying but but but?

Clear as daylight there are certain fans who think Babar and Rizwan are inheritors of Pakistan team and they should do what they like while the rest of the team has to fall in line.

Babar and Rizwan haven't earned any privilege.

They need to start winning knockout games by themselves to be able to keep opening and not be questioned.

But isn’t it intellectually dishonest to just look at the PP score and not the overall score? England were behind Pak If you compare PP scores but chased down our total in 14 overs.

If anything does that not further highlight where the real issue is and that is after the power play? Eng increased their intensity after the PP and Pakistan went on to score at run a ball. Shuffling the top 3 will only have little impact until we have a middle order that can consistently strike at a high SR.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Bit a tricky subject. Too many variables. What is their strike rate when they cross 50? Is it high or low? I should be on the high side given that you consume a lot of balls

Babar & Rizwan have identical numbers in the last 5 years against top 8 sides as openers.

Filter details

Openers, 50 plus score, against top 8 sides

Average scores per innings

Babar 75(50) 18 fifty plus scores out of a total of 51
Rizwan 75(51) 17 fifty plus scores out of a total of 37

What are the numbers of Babar when he doesn't cross 50?

It is 108.20 ( 33 innings)


What are the numbers of Rizwan when Rizwan doesn't cross 50

It is 108.00 (20 innings)

The numbers are remarkably identical for both.

They make up somewhat for the low strike rate when they cross 50. What if they don't? This problem was a serious problem with KL Rahul.


As a comparison same filter


75(42) Rohit - @214
69(42) Buttler - @197
73(45) Dhawan - @195
64(40) Finch - @192
67(44) Warner - @182
61(42) KL Rahul - @174

At the end of the day team composition determines what is best for the team. If a team is bowling strong team then they can offset any inadequacies. If a team has a terrific finisher like Miller or Maxwell they can also make up in the end.

 

[jnaveen1980]

^ additional filter they are all openers

 

[PakPremi]

[MENTION=132173]Gayle_Force[/MENTION] totally agree with you and I have been saying the same why PP runs are the only criteria what about the runs scored in the 14 overs where the middle order's contribution is poor removing some cameos played by Nawaz or oneby Shadab. Many teams score around 50 in PP but they have capacity to hit 180+ with their middle to lower order batsmen, it is another matter that they do not always achieve it.

 

[Rana]

[MENTION=132173]Gayle_Force[/MENTION] totally agree with you and I have been saying the same why PP runs are the only criteria what about the runs scored in the 14 overs where the middle order's contribution is poor removing some cameos played by Nawaz or oneby Shadab. Many teams score around 50 in PP but they have capacity to hit 180+ with their middle to lower order batsmen, it is another matter that they do not always achieve it.

Openers zyaada sarr pe na charhain

Do your job. Bat hard and aim for 50+ in the powerplay

We don’t need Newton’s theoretical explanations of what if and what can happen. Know your role…

 

[Gayle_Force]

[MENTION=132173]Gayle_Force[/MENTION] totally agree with you and I have been saying the same why PP runs are the only criteria what about the runs scored in the 14 overs where the middle order's contribution is poor removing some cameos played by Nawaz or oneby Shadab. Many teams score around 50 in PP but they have capacity to hit 180+ with their middle to lower order batsmen, it is another matter that they do not always achieve it.

Agreed and tbh this has become a redundant topic and there are clearly two different thoughts about this openers vs middle order topic within this forum.

There seems to be a new thread created on this every day but it seems pretty clear that everyone has made up their minds based on their opinions. At the end of the day, I think everyone wants what is best for the team and it should be left at that. The only reality is that overall Pakistan is behind other top teams in T20 cricket and it will take a Herculean effort for the team to do well in the WT20 tournament.

 

[hitthestump]

Agreed and tbh this has become a redundant topic and there are clearly two different thoughts about this openers vs middle order topic within this forum.

There seems to be a new thread created on this every day but it seems pretty clear that everyone has made up their minds based on their opinions. At the end of the day, I think everyone wants what is best for the team and it should be left at that. The only reality is that overall Pakistan is behind other top teams in T20 cricket and it will take a Herculean effort for the team to do well in the WT20 tournament.

Agreed. Such a shame that we have a few posters who think repeating the same thing 200 times per day is the way to go.

It's also created a very toxic environment around the team. Poor Shaheen Afridi has to take to twitter to try and shut them up.

 

[srh]

66-1 is better than 40-0 anyday

not according to some Rizwan fans

 

[srh]

It depends, whether we are chasing or setting a score. Who we have to come in next etc.

oh my God this guy is not happy with 66/1 but happy with 40/0

 

[Rana]

Agreed. Such a shame that we have a few posters who think repeating the same thing 200 times per day is the way to go.

It's also created a very toxic environment around the team. Poor Shaheen Afridi has to take to twitter to try and shut them up.

What did you expect?

People to just accept and be happy with this nonsense?

 

[Rana]

oh my God this guy is not happy with 66/1 but happy with 40/0

Apparently you don’t understand cricket if you don’t look at the whole picture rather than just the powerplay

 

[Technics 1210]

I think the pertinent question here is what would've been the PP phase score had RizBar opened in the warmup match?

Sadly, we will never know, but what we do know is that when RizBar were not opening, Pakistan scored 66/1 which is 99.99% higher when compared to Rizbar PP phase score.

Second pertinent question, had RizBar batted 3 and 4 on the foundation of 66/1, how many runs would they've had scored?

Remember folks, RizBar, rhymes with Misbah - the epitome of a defensive mentality.

 

[hitthestump]

I think the pertinent question here is what would've been the PP phase score had RizBar opened in the warmup match?

I'm more curious what RizBar is. Do you mean RizBab? Where does the R come from?

I'm also quite amused at how many straws are being clutched over a warmup match )

 

[Rana]

40/0

Great score to have in 15 overs of a Test innings

Foundation is laid and the new ball has been seen off. Two players have done the hard work and one should go on to score a ton

 

[Technics 1210]

I'm more curious what RizBar is. Do you mean RizBab? Where does the R come from?

I'm also quite amused at how many straws are being clutched over a warmup match )

Obviously a typo.

Lets stick with RizBa.

 

[Rana]

Obviously a typo.

Lets stick with RizBa.

Rizbah

The legacy of Misbah

 

[Technics 1210]

Rizbah

The legacy of Misbah

Yup, no doubt about it.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

How come Sharjeel the saviour has never been picked up by a franchise?

I mean even Ahsan Ali, Sohaib Maqsood, Ahmed Shezad etc have all been picked up some franchise across the globe.

I've never seen Sharjeel mentioned.

 

[Rana]

How come Sharjeel the saviour has never been picked up by a franchise?

I mean even Ahsan Ali, Sohaib Maqsood, Ahmed Shezad etc have all been picked up some franchise across the globe.

I've never seen Sharjeel mentioned.

?

He was top scorer in KPL

Go on. Devalue that too

 

[topspin]

It's a misleading question, unless you are saying 10/10 times the option is between 66/1 vs 40/0. If 66/1 is going to be in 2 out of 10 matches vs 40/0 in 7 out of 10, then i will take 40/0.

This makes no sense

 

[DeadlyVenom]

?

He was top scorer in KPL

Go on. Devalue that too

KPL is our own league that consists only of Pakistanis.

Look at the players that get selected across the globe.

It's a genuine question - why don't the KPL, LPL, CPL, GPL, IT20,BBL, T20blast have a look at him. They have the finest analysts in the game across these leagues, in fact many of the coaching staff move from league to league.

Mickey Arthur who's positive mindset is being championed in other threads has even selected the much derided Shan Masood.

Other domestic players like the aging Asif afridi even got picked up by Shpageeza league.

Why never Sharjeel? He has not been mentioned once.