Champions Trophy Final: Whose innings was more important - Azhar Ali's or Mohammad Hafeez's?

[mak36]

I was having a discussion in one of the other threads with [MENTION=137148]Rayyman[/MENTION] which prompted the following question:

Whose innings was more important in the Champions Trophy Final? Azhar Ali's 59 (71) or Hafeez's 57 (37)?

For me, it has to be Azhar's for the following reason:

1. He was part of a 128 run opening stand which was scored at 5.6 runs an over. To do that in a final, having been put in to bat is a tremendous effort. That partnership set the foundation for a big score, especially given Pakistan's top order can be a little frail.

2. Read the situation well. Early on, when Fakhar Zaman was struggling to find his rhythm Azhar upped his aggression to reduce the pressure on him. Once Fakhar found his groove, Azhar rotated the strike and played a supporting role to Fakhar.

3. Reassured Fakhar and settled his nerves, which gave him the confidence to perform- the rest as they say is history...

4. Scored at a strike rate of 83.09 which was his best in the tournament.

Compare that now to Hafeez's innings. Hafeez came in with a very solid platform already built (247-3). He scored a 37 ball 57, which is a strike rate of 154.05. Sounds impressive. However, when you look a little closer the numbers tell a different story. Helpfully, the first ball he faced was the first ball of the 41st over which means I have a ten over period to look at:

1. Pakistan only hit nine boundaries in the last 10 overs- that is less than a boundary an over. It's even worse when you look at the last 5 overs: only 3 boundaries were hit. Obviously, that doesn't solely fall on Hafeez but (i) he was the senior man and (ii) of the 62 balls in the last ten overs (two no balls) Hafeez faced 37 of them. That means he faced the majority of deliveries in the final ten overs (60%).

2. At the time, I couldn't help but feel that in those last ten overs Pakistan had missed an opportunity to completely take the game out of India's hands (by scoring another twenty runs or so). That's supported by the fact Pakistan only scored 91 in the last ten overs.

3. Another reason I rate Azhar's innings higher is that if he had failed he would exposed the middle order early on, and knowing Pakistan's ability to collapse that could have cost Pakistan the match. Whereas if Hafeez had failed, I feel that at least one of Imad, Sarfaraz, Shadab, Amir and/or Hassan would have scored some runs to get us up to a decent total. So in the context of the match, with a very good platform already set I can't help but conclude Hafeez's innings was less important than Azhar's.

To be clear:

(i) I am not saying that Hafeez's innings in the final was poor/worthless. Rather, this is a comparative exercise and I am of the view that Azhar's innings was better/more important in contributing to Pakistan winning the CT.

(ii) I am talking specifically about their CT final innings- this is not a player comparison per se.

So, which of the two innings do you rate more highly?

(For obvious reasons, it would be interesting to hear from some Indian posters as well.)

 

[Im Suds]

I am surprised this needs to be even considered as Azhar s innings was much more important in the context of the game.
He and Fakhar resisted India's goodish bowling attack comfortably destroying India s game plan of bowling us out for 250~ they provided a base for a 350 score ~ Hafeez played well but under no pressure at all.
Azhar absorbed that himself with Fakhar

 

[super hitter]

We have seen in the past how one of the openers fall and we see a collapse...The opening partnership was greater than anything, it was a blessing in disguise!

 

[Pakprideuk]

This isn't even a discussion point. Azhar's innings was far superior in the context of the game. How many times have we started off slowly and just been completely bogged down against India? The way Azhar hit Ashwin for a six in his first over really set the tempo.

 

[silentkiller187]

if Azhar hadn't of laid the platform then who knows what would have happened. Azhar all the way.

 

[Ahson8]

Definitely Azhar's. Laid the platform.

 

[hadi123]

Cricket is a team game so it doesn't really matter whose innings was better, in my opinion. However, if I had to choose I would say Azhar Ali. He saw off the new ball and played more aggressive than he usually does as Zaman was struggling early on. He set the platform very well for the rest of the line up and he rotated the strike very well

 

[Rayyman]

Babar could've done far better than what Azhar did. In fact, he would've scored a hundred on that flat pitch if he came earlier.

And no Sarfraz, Shadab or Amir couldn't have played the innings that Hafeez did.

 

[Suleiman]

Hafeez. Babar could've played an Azhar like innings too but Hafeez was the last guy left to give us final overs flourish.

Imad was not able to connect a lot of the times, and I wouldn't trust tailenders to cope with pressure in a final.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

It's tough since azhar took the pressure off Fakhar at the start but I would say Hafeez's was better. It was an onslaught that the Indians weren't expecting. Without it the target could've been 300 and it would've been a different game, psychologically.

 

[mak36]

It's tough since azhar took the pressure off Fakhar at the start but I would say Hafeez's was better. It was an onslaught that the Indians weren't expecting. Without it the target could've been 300 and it would've been a different game, psychologically.

An onslaught of nine boundaries in ten overs?

 

[mak36]

Babar could've done far better than what Azhar did. In fact, he would've scored a hundred on that flat pitch if he came earlier.

And no Sarfraz, Shadab or Amir couldn't have played the innings that Hafeez did.

Could have. Would have. Should have. We are talking about two innings that happened and comparing them- we are not discussing what Babar may have done.

I note you removed Imad and Hassan Ali from the list I provided. Also, Shadab and Amir have shown they have hitting ability (Amir's innings against England comes to mind).

 

[Rayyman]

An onslaught of nine boundaries in ten overs?

Is 91 runs in 10.2 overs not enough for you? What did you expect 150 runs?

 

[mak36]

Is 91 runs in 10.2 overs not enough for you? What did you expect 150 runs?

No- 100 is the widely accepted benchmark. On that pitch with the foundation that had been laid, 120+ was achievable.

Anyway that is a side point- get back to the main topic of this thread.

 

[Rayyman]

No- 100 is the widely accepted benchmark. On that pitch with the foundation that had been laid, 120+ was achievable.

Anyway that is a side point- get back to the main topic of this thread.

I highlighted to you that 100 was the widely accepted benchmark before the rule change that allowed 5 fielders on the boundary during the last 10 overs.

I love going back to this scorecard and seeing "Pakistan won by 180 runs." Makes me so happy.

 

[wicketpace]

It's tough since azhar took the pressure off Fakhar at the start but I would say Hafeez's was better. It was an onslaught that the Indians weren't expecting. Without it the target could've been 300 and it would've been a different game, psychologically.

300???

Just think if Azhar had got out early what could've happened and if Hafeez went early what could've happened...

315 was definitely expected, all that was meant to be done was to add 20-30 more to that...

Azhar not only did play well but set the tone for the match, he slowed down only when Fakhar settled himself.

Hafeez came in the slogging overs and had to ignore technicalities and focus on slogging that worked for him, their was no pressure, nothing!

 

[MMHS]

MoHa was instrumental in a 150+ margin, but Azhar set up the platform. MoHa came at 240+ for 3 with around 10 overs to go - if he wasn't lucky and got out for a 1st ball duck, yet PAK's total should have reached may be 320/9, instead of 338/4; still well above the critical mass of an ICC Final - for me that was 270+, I wrote it in match thread that anything over 250 is competitive for PAK attack at Oval track. In that regard, Hafeez actually came to bat when the game was already won - Babar was at one side and there was Sarfraz, Shadab, Amir, Hasan - no way IND could have made a comeback from say 243/4 with almost 10 overs to go - may be that margin of 180 could have been 120 ....

Azhar set the game - if he was out to make it 10/1 - that's totally a different ball game. I tend to believe that ODI batting fundamentals haven't change much since 1975 - it's still built on partnership, momentum, gradual build-up keeping wickets at hand .... it's just that conditions has moved the par from 240 to 340 so teams, in a better batting display, these days can reach 150 in 29 overs rather than in 38, but an opening partnership of 128 is always priceless.

Not even a comparison for me.

 

[msb314]

I was having a discussion in one of the other threads with [MENTION=137148]Rayyman[/MENTION] which prompted the following question:

Whose innings was more important in the Champions Trophy Final? Azhar Ali's 59 (71) or Hafeez's 57 (37)?

For me, it has to be Azhar's for the following reason:

1. He was part of a 128 run opening stand which was scored at 5.6 runs an over. To do that in a final, having been put in to bat is a tremendous effort. That partnership set the foundation for a big score, especially given Pakistan's top order can be a little frail.

2. Read the situation well. Early on, when Fakhar Zaman was struggling to find his rhythm Azhar upped his aggression to reduce the pressure on him. Once Fakhar found his groove, Azhar rotated the strike and played a supporting role to Fakhar.

3. Reassured Fakhar and settled his nerves, which gave him the confidence to perform- the rest as they say is history...

4. Scored at a strike rate of 83.09 which was his best in the tournament.

Compare that now to Hafeez's innings. Hafeez came in with a very solid platform already built (247-3). He scored a 37 ball 57, which is a strike rate of 154.05. Sounds impressive. However, when you look a little closer the numbers tell a different story. Helpfully, the first ball he faced was the first ball of the 41st over which means I have a ten over period to look at:

1. Pakistan only hit nine boundaries in the last 10 overs- that is less than a boundary an over. It's even worse when you look at the last 5 overs: only 3 boundaries were hit. Obviously, that doesn't solely fall on Hafeez but (i) he was the senior man and (ii) of the 62 balls in the last ten overs (two no balls) Hafeez faced 37 of them. That means he faced the majority of deliveries in the final ten overs (60%).

2. At the time, I couldn't help but feel that in those last ten overs Pakistan had missed an opportunity to completely take the game out of India's hands (by scoring another twenty runs or so). That's supported by the fact Pakistan only scored 91 in the last ten overs.

3. Another reason I rate Azhar's innings higher is that if he had failed he would exposed the middle order early on, and knowing Pakistan's ability to collapse that could have cost Pakistan the match. Whereas if Hafeez had failed, I feel that at least one of Imad, Sarfaraz, Shadab, Amir and/or Hassan would have scored some runs to get us up to a decent total. So in the context of the match, with a very good platform already set I can't help but conclude Hafeez's innings was less important than Azhar's.

To be clear:

(i) I am not saying that Hafeez's innings in the final was poor/worthless. Rather, this is a comparative exercise and I am of the view that Azhar's innings was better/more important in contributing to Pakistan winning the CT.

(ii) I am talking specifically about their CT final innings- this is not a player comparison per se.

So, which of the two innings do you rate more highly?

(For obvious reasons, it would be interesting to hear from some Indian posters as well.)

Hafeez - he is the one who put the target beyond reach of India.

 

[msb314]

It's tough since azhar took the pressure off Fakhar at the start but I would say Hafeez's was better. It was an onslaught that the Indians weren't expecting. Without it the target could've been 300 and it would've been a different game, psychologically.

This. Agree

Also had Babar played more aggressively - the Indian run chase would have already been dead and buried if they were staring at a target of 360+

 

[aloo paratha]

Anybody who has a sane cricketing sense and has an unbiased approach will know it was Azhars innings which was much more valuable. Had Azhar gotten out early who knows what could;ve happened especially because Pakistan is prone to collapsing.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Azhar's innings.

Had Azhar failed, there was always a possibility of a batting collapse.

Had Hafeez failed, Pakistan would have still scored 300+ runs. There was still plenty of batting left.

 

[msb314]

Hafeez. Babar could've played an Azhar like innings too but Hafeez was the last guy left to give us final overs flourish.

Imad was not able to connect a lot of the times, and I wouldn't trust tailenders to cope with pressure in a final.

We also have Sarfraz left but he may have also struggled in the slog overs.

 

[ads101]

Hafeez's was better. Think people are a bit biased against Hafeez, both scored similar scores except Hafeez did it in half the number of balls.

Fakhar provided a superior innings, Azhar's was good, slightly on the slow side. It wasn't a difficult pitch to score, hence why Hafeez scored quickly. I said during the match, was probably a blessing in disguise when Azhar got out, was the right time for batsmen who score quicker than him to come in. Azhar has a lack of ability of accelerating an innings where even Hafeez is better, would not have done what Fakhar did if he wasn't run out.

Azhar's innings was very important and set the foundation. However I don't think that overrides Hafeez's innings given the strike rate difference. By that logic any innings down the order is worthless compared to ones at top. It may have been different if conditions were hard to bat on, but it wasn't it was a 300 (or more pitch).

People say Had Azhar got out early, we had other batsmen to come. We didn't use up all our wickets. Yes the security of a strong opening stand is great (which Fakhar also deserves credit for). On the other hand though, Hafeez was the only one who scored a decent score down the order at a high rate, Malik got out, Imad struggled. Was actually surprised Sarfraz wasn't sent in earlier to do the sort of innings Hafeez did, and was pretty uncharacteristic of Hafeez who usually does not bat this low, but it's good (I wanted Sarfraz to come in instead before Hafeez during the final match).

It was a pitch where we need a good 300+ score. Just because India flopped in the final doesn't change that, on a good day India would have scored 300+ on that pitch.

If India had scored decently, I think would have been given more credit, i.e. the difference between winning and losing. India batted so badly you could take out both Azhar's and Hafeez's innings and we still would have won most likely. Hafeez's was a really uncharacteristic innings, I was surprised lol I didn't expect it.

 

[mak36]

I am surprised this needs to be even considered as Azhar s innings was much more important in the context of the game.
He and Fakhar resisted India's goodish bowling attack comfortably destroying India s game plan of bowling us out for 250~ they provided a base for a 350 score ~ Hafeez played well but under no pressure at all.
Azhar absorbed that himself with Fakhar

So am I, but it appears some of our "learned" posters think otherwise.

 

[mak36]

I highlighted to you that 100 was the widely accepted benchmark before the rule change that allowed 5 fielders on the boundary during the last 10 overs.

I love going back to this scorecard and seeing "Pakistan won by 180 runs." Makes me so happy.

Bhai, I highlighted to you that you can't look at the rule change in isolation. Five fielders are allowed on boundaries because of (i) flatter wickets (ii) smaller boundaries (iii) bigger bats etc.- all of which favour the batsmen. Allowing one more fielder on the boundary in not going to negate all of those factors.

We can both agree on your last point. Pakistani and Indian fans will remember that scorecard for a very long time (for very different reasons!)

I note you are yet to provide reasons for why you rate Hafeez's innings more than you do Azhar's.

 

[mak36]

Hafeez's was better. Think people are a bit biased against Hafeez, both scored similar scores except Hafeez did it in half the number of balls.

Fakhar provided a superior innings, Azhar's was good, slightly on the slow side. It wasn't a difficult pitch to score, hence why Hafeez scored quickly. I said during the match, was probably a blessing in disguise when Azhar got out, was the right time for batsmen who score quicker than him to come in. Azhar has a lack of ability of accelerating an innings where even Hafeez is better, would not have done what Fakhar did if he wasn't run out.

Azhar's innings was very important and set the foundation. However I don't think that overrides Hafeez's innings given the strike rate difference. By that logic any innings down the order is worthless compared to ones at top. It may have been different if conditions were hard to bat on, but it wasn't it was a 300 (or more pitch).

People say Had Azhar got out early, we had other batsmen to come. We didn't use up all our wickets. Yes the security of a strong opening stand is great (which Fakhar also deserves credit for). On the other hand though, Hafeez was the only one who scored a decent score down the order at a high rate, Malik got out, Imad struggled. Was actually surprised Sarfraz wasn't sent in earlier to do the sort of innings Hafeez did, and was pretty uncharacteristic of Hafeez who usually does not bat this low, but it's good (I wanted Sarfraz to come in instead before Hafeez during the final match).

It was a pitch where we need a good 300+ score. Just because India flopped in the final doesn't change that, on a good day India would have scored 300+ on that pitch.

If India had scored decently, I think would have been given more credit, i.e. the difference between winning and losing. India batted so badly you could take out both Azhar's and Hafeez's innings and we still would have won most likely. Hafeez's was a really uncharacteristic innings, I was surprised lol I didn't expect it.

You are underplaying the fact that Pakistan have never scored a 100+ opening partnership in a final before. To do that against India in a final is quite something; it set the tone for the rest of the match.

 

[SarfiBabarHaris]

Azhar's easily.
Pakistan were ~240 for 3 with 11 overs remaining when Hafeez came to the crease. Already in winning position. What Hafeez did; Sarfraz, Shadab, Hasa etc would have done. Even if not exactly the same we still would have scored 320-325 which was a winning score.

Azhar played the difficult period of first 10 overs with scoreboard ticking when Fakhar was struggling.

 

[Suleiman]

Hafeez's was better. Think people are a bit biased against Hafeez, both scored similar scores except Hafeez did it in half the number of balls.

Fakhar provided a superior innings, Azhar's was good, slightly on the slow side. It wasn't a difficult pitch to score, hence why Hafeez scored quickly. I said during the match, was probably a blessing in disguise when Azhar got out, was the right time for batsmen who score quicker than him to come in. Azhar has a lack of ability of accelerating an innings where even Hafeez is better, would not have done what Fakhar did if he wasn't run out.

Azhar's innings was very important and set the foundation. However I don't think that overrides Hafeez's innings given the strike rate difference. By that logic any innings down the order is worthless compared to ones at top. It may have been different if conditions were hard to bat on, but it wasn't it was a 300 (or more pitch).

People say Had Azhar got out early, we had other batsmen to come. We didn't use up all our wickets. Yes the security of a strong opening stand is great (which Fakhar also deserves credit for). On the other hand though, Hafeez was the only one who scored a decent score down the order at a high rate, Malik got out, Imad struggled. Was actually surprised Sarfraz wasn't sent in earlier to do the sort of innings Hafeez did, and was pretty uncharacteristic of Hafeez who usually does not bat this low, but it's good (I wanted Sarfraz to come in instead before Hafeez during the final match).

It was a pitch where we need a good 300+ score. Just because India flopped in the final doesn't change that, on a good day India would have scored 300+ on that pitch.

If India had scored decently, I think would have been given more credit, i.e. the difference between winning and losing. India batted so badly you could take out both Azhar's and Hafeez's innings and we still would have won most likely. Hafeez's was a really uncharacteristic innings, I was surprised lol I didn't expect it.

Agree. Just because Hafeez's innings were better it doesn't mean we are tarnishing Azhar's. Both were vital, but such is the nature of the question in the thread title.

The way India rejuvenated for a fleeting moment when Yuvraj starting spanking Junaid and when Pandya went berserk, you needed 320+ to secure a win.

Sarfraz is not a big hitter, and you can't give the responsibility to bowlers like Amir, Hasan and Shadab in a do or die situation like that to score close to a 100 runs,in the last 10.

While we have seen many times Pakistan losing an opener and then proceeding to collapse, by the same token we've also seen us making a solid foundation with the openers only to lose the plot in the last 10-15 overs and turning a potential 300 to a 250. Case in point, 2nd ODI vs Australia in the 2014 UAE series. Sarfraz and Shehzad opened and we were cruising at 140-0 iirc at 5 and half rpo. Then we lost one opener and the rest of the batting followed. 230 all out.

Honestly it is subjective opinion which innings you consider greater. Both were needed to supplement Fakhar's 100 to get to 300. It's like with a car, you need front wheels and back wheels. You can't drive with only the front wheels or back wheels.

 

[Leo23]

azhar easily

fakhar was very nervous in the beginning but azhar kept the scoreboard ticking and ensured that india did not breakthrough

had he fell early i think we would have collapsed

hafeez converted a 300 score into a 340 total but the way we bowled that day even 250 would have been enough

 

[Hasan123]

Azhar's for me. He set the platform and also helped Fakhar a lot. If Azhar was dimissed early, I doubt Hafeez would have been able to play such a knock as we know he is weak under pressure.

 

[mak36]

Azhar's easily.
Pakistan were ~240 for 3 with 11 overs remaining when Hafeez came to the crease. Already in winning position. What Hafeez did; Sarfraz, Shadab, Hasa etc would have done. Even if not exactly the same we still would have scored 320-325 which was a winning score.

Azhar played the difficult period of first 10 overs with scoreboard ticking when Fakhar was struggling.

Talking sense, why am I not surprised?

 

[mak36]

[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] can we add a poll please and thank you?

 

[mak36]

This. Agree

Also had Babar played more aggressively - the Indian run chase would have already been dead and buried if they were staring at a target of 360+

The same can be said for Hafeez's innings- there were very few boundaries hit in the last ten overs.

 

[Abdullah719]

[MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] can we add a poll please and thank you?

Done.

I have also voted.

 

[msb314]

The same can be said for Hafeez's innings- there were very few boundaries hit in the last ten overs.

That was not Hafeez's fault - Hafeez hit all the bowlers he faced including Jadeja, Bumrah and even Bhuvneshwar.

It was Imad who slowed down the innings by only hitting one four and one six. In the last over - he tried cute dinks and scoops that all failed when he should have pulled or cow cornered.

Imad is poor with the bat and ball and should be dropped before we continue to suffer for another decade!!

 

[The Googly]

Azhar Ali by a mile. He helped lay the platform.

 

[mak36]

Done.

I have also voted.

Thanks. Is it not a public poll as I can't see which way you (or anyone else) voted?

ps. I suspected you would vote once I tagged you.

 

[Abdullah719]

Thanks. Is it not a public poll as I can't see which way you (or anyone else) voted?

ps. I suspected you would vote once I tagged you.

Click on the number of votes in front of each option. That'll show who voted for who.

 

[Monsee]

You have to be insane to think Hafeez played an innings that added more meaning to the match and that Pakistan would not have gotten to 315 even if he didn't do well; give that much credit to people like Amir, Shadab, Hassan and Co. They could have easily added 20-30 runs if they had faced the same number of balls due to the sheer pressure Indian bowlers were under towards the end and how the pitch had eased out by then!

Azhar Ali played out of his skin, while Fakkhar was still struggling and didn't start scoring more freely till Azhar was gone anyway

 

[mak36]

Click on the number of votes in front of each option. That'll show who voted for who.

Thanks- i normally just click the "view poll results" button but that wasn't showing.

I see you have chosen wisely.

 

[ads101]

You are underplaying the fact that Pakistan have never scored a 100+ opening partnership in a final before. To do that against India in a final is quite something; it set the tone for the rest of the match.

Don't really remember too many times a quick fifty was hit down the order like that in the final by us or posting an around 330 score in a final. We don't get to many finals either. Was one of the highest totals posted in a final by any team I believe too, which may have not been the case.

To be fair, had someone had done Azhar's innings by a stronger batting side say India, no one would be hyping it. Yet a Hafeez like innings still would have got credit, due to it's strike rate and achieving that sort of total which strong batting teams aim for. Pandya did a similar sort of innings to Hafeez but better in that final too.

I don't think it's fair to rate an innings higher just because we think Pakistan batting is weak or prone to collapse but not do the same for other teams. There's such a big difference too, Hafeez's came at double the strike rate. And Babar while wasn't a better innings than Azhar, scored nearly 50 at a better strike rate, the whole top 3 scored. Babar actually only struggled when he tried to accelerate the innings, staying in really wasn't too hard.

I can get why a similar innings up the order in this scenario would be worth more than a similar down the order. But the difference is too great, Hafeez did it twice as quickly, and Both Fakhar and Babar in the top 3 scored similar or more runs and faster. What Azhar did wasn't unique.

 

[mak36]

Don't really remember too many times a quick fifty was hit down the order like that in the final by us or posting an around 330 score in a final. We don't get to many finals either. Was one of the highest totals posted in a final by any team I believe too, which may have not been the case.

To be fair, had someone had done Azhar's innings by a stronger batting side say India, no one would be hyping it. Yet a Hafeez like innings still would have got credit, due to it's strike rate and achieving that sort of total which strong batting teams aim for. Pandya did a similar sort of innings to Hafeez but better in that final too.

I don't think it's fair to rate an innings higher just because we think Pakistan batting is weak or prone to collapse but not do the same for other teams. There's such a big difference too, Hafeez's came at double the strike rate. And Babar while wasn't a better innings than Azhar, scored nearly 50 at a better strike rate, the whole top 3 scored. Babar actually only struggled when he tried to accelerate the innings, staying in really wasn't too hard.

I can get why a similar innings up the order in this scenario would be worth more than a similar down the order. But the difference is too great, Hafeez did it twice as quickly, and Both Fakhar and Babar in the top 3 scored similar or more runs and faster. What Azhar did wasn't unique.

That literally makes no sense- of course you factor that in. Not least because I can exactly the same thing to you: you rate Hafeez's innings higher because you think no-one else would have been able to play that innings in the team. Using your logic, you are wrong to do so.

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that argument.

 

[mak36]

That was not Hafeez's fault - Hafeez hit all the bowlers he faced including Jadeja, Bumrah and even Bhuvneshwar.

It was Imad who slowed down the innings by only hitting one four and one six. In the last over - he tried cute dinks and scoops that all failed when he should have pulled or cow cornered.

Imad is poor with the bat and ball and should be dropped before we continue to suffer for another decade!!

I have already dealt with this:

1. Pakistan only hit nine boundaries in the last 10 overs- that is less than a boundary an over. It's even worse when you look at the last 5 overs: only 3 boundaries were hit. Obviously, that doesn't solely fall on Hafeez but (i) he was the senior man and (ii) of the 62 balls in the last ten overs (two no balls) Hafeez faced 37 of them. That means he faced the majority of deliveries in the final ten overs (60%).

Hafeez faced the vast majority of deliveries in the last ten so it's no good putting the blame (solely) on Imad.

 

[TalhaSyed]

Six and half a dozen for me.

If Azhar flopped at the top of the order, it's very possible that we would have ended up crawling to a score of 220-240 at best losing many wickets along the way.

If Hafeez failed to deliver we could have very easily found ourselves bundled out for 270, which would have released all the pressure from India.

Either way, I think India would have been able to chase the target down with ease.

However, Alhumdullilah, on that day the Cornered Tigers showed up.

As Nasser Hussain would say - "we've worked out which Pakistan have shown up today! It's the one to be afraid of!"

Alhumdullilah the entire team showed immense strength, calibre, talent and mental endurance to over come the odds and bring the Champions Trophy to Pakistam

 

[super hitter]

Don't really remember too many times a quick fifty was hit down the order like that in the final by us or posting an around 330 score in a final. We don't get to many finals either. Was one of the highest totals posted in a final by any team I believe too, which may have not been the case.

To be fair, had someone had done Azhar's innings by a stronger batting side say India, no one would be hyping it. Yet a Hafeez like innings still would have got credit, due to it's strike rate and achieving that sort of total which strong batting teams aim for. Pandya did a similar sort of innings to Hafeez but better in that final too.

I don't think it's fair to rate an innings higher just because we think Pakistan batting is weak or prone to collapse but not do the same for other teams. There's such a big difference too, Hafeez's came at double the strike rate. And Babar while wasn't a better innings than Azhar, scored nearly 50 at a better strike rate, the whole top 3 scored. Babar actually only struggled when he tried to accelerate the innings, staying in really wasn't too hard.

I can get why a similar innings up the order in this scenario would be worth more than a similar down the order. But the difference is too great, Hafeez did it twice as quickly, and Both Fakhar and Babar in the top 3 scored similar or more runs and faster. What Azhar did wasn't unique.

In that case I can say we shouldn't rate an innings higher based on a high strike rate (that too in slogging overs with only 3 down) because we think the Pakistani batsmen are slow!

 

[hailian]

I voted Azhar (for being Azhar fan even in his rainy days) and I’m Hafeez biggest crtic but I must say his innings was equally instrumental. He hit couple of sweet sixes specially the one on mid on. Hafeez innings made me believe that it’s a Pakistan day for sure

 

[ads101]

In that case I can say we shouldn't rate an innings higher based on a high strike rate (that too in slogging overs with only 3 down) because we think the Pakistani batsmen are slow!

That doesn't make sense lol, if Pakistani batsmen were slow you'd rate it higher. If we assume hypothetically Pakistani batsmen scored generally at a fast rate, you could rate Hafeez's batting lower (as our batsmen don't struggle to score quick).

Innings like Azhar's are expected by the stronger batting teams. India's openers do them many times for example (and did several times in the CT) at higher strike rates. No one bats an eye. A fifty at a SR 150 is pretty good by any standards/strength of batting side regardless of situation, especially when he was the best down the order to contribute, Malik failed, Imad struggled, Babar struggled to accelerate though was able to stay in.

I rate Azhar's innings, it was assured, and under pressure. But not enough to class it better than a guy who scored twice as quick. I don't even think this would be a competition if it was someone else rather than Hafeez who scored it lol.

For example let's use a recent match for comparison. Where the opposition batting side actually turned up. I get it's not a final match, but still: http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10927/scorecard/1077949/West-Indies-vs-Pakistan-1st-ODI

Shehzad scored 67 at a SR of 80. Didn't anyone rave about that innings? He formed an 85 run opening stand with Kamran Akmal too. The best innings of that match from our side was Malik's a 53 at a great SR, which propelled Pakistan to over 300. Unfortunately we still lost that match due to Jason Mohammed's incredible innings. Yes Shehzad looked shakier, had a bit of luck, but still it's evident which innings had a better impact even if we say Shehzad played flawlessly for those runs.

The reason people rate it higher is because they think our batting side is collapse prone. Which isn't a good way of thinking, in fact it's rather a negative way of thinking. And of course because Hafeez isn't popular, if it was someone else it'd have been received better. Tbh Hafeez most times these days looks out of form and a very shaky starter. It wouldn't be wrong to say that on that day Hafeez probably got a bit lucky that everything worked for him, on another day he could well have failed. It doesn't diminish the value of the inning's stand alone however (even though as a player, am unconvinced of his worth in the future, he's past it IMO).

 

[ads101]

That literally makes no sense- of course you factor that in. Not least because I can exactly the same thing to you: you rate Hafeez's innings higher because you think no-one else would have been able to play that innings in the team. Using your logic, you are wrong to do so.

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that argument.

That's what people are saying, if Azhar didn't do that innings we could have collapsed. That's all. That's what several posters have said on this thread, not me.

You can't say that because I never said that, never said no one else could play that innings. Malik is capable of it, he failed that day that's all. Sarfraz could definitely of. I simply said it was a similar innings in terms of runs, with Hafeez scoring at double the strike rate. That's a massive difference in strike rate, which I don't think can be ignored due to the fact Azhar played higher up the order.

I wonder just how fast a SR Hafeez would have had to play for people to rate Hafeez's innings over Azhar. Because obviously doubling his SR isn't enough. Maybe triple?

If Azhar had done this stand alone innings on his own when wickets were falling, you'd have a point. Obviously more pressure. That wasn't the case. We weren't collapsing, Fakhar performed. People on this board are using what if logic, which I don't agree with that argument.

 

[Abdulm123]

Azhar Ali`s knock was more important since he was part of the 128 run opening partnership and also, even if hafeez didnt bat or hafeez`s 57 of 37 balls knock didnt happen. We still would have beaten India

 

[Abdulm123]

We need mohammad hafeez batting at 7 and Sarfraz batting at 5 since sarfraz is a good batsman up the order and Hafeez is better down the order

 

[super hitter]

That doesn't make sense lol, if Pakistani batsmen were slow you'd rate it higher. If we assume hypothetically Pakistani batsmen scored generally at a fast rate, you could rate Hafeez's batting lower (as our batsmen don't struggle to score quick).

Innings like Azhar's are expected by the stronger batting teams. India's openers do them many times for example (and did several times in the CT) at higher strike rates. No one bats an eye. A fifty at a SR 150 is pretty good by any standards/strength of batting side regardless of situation, especially when he was the best down the order to contribute, Malik failed, Imad struggled, Babar struggled to accelerate though was able to stay in.

I rate Azhar's innings, it was assured, and under pressure. But not enough to class it better than a guy who scored twice as quick. I don't even think this would be a competition if it was someone else rather than Hafeez who scored it lol.

For example let's use a recent match for comparison. Where the opposition batting side actually turned up. I get it's not a final match, but still: http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10927/scorecard/1077949/West-Indies-vs-Pakistan-1st-ODI

Shehzad scored 67 at a SR of 80. Didn't anyone rave about that innings? He formed an 85 run opening stand with Kamran Akmal too. The best innings of that match from our side was Malik's a 53 at a great SR, which propelled Pakistan to over 300. Unfortunately we still lost that match due to Jason Mohammed's incredible innings. Yes Shehzad looked shakier, had a bit of luck, but still it's evident which innings had a better impact even if we say Shehzad played flawlessly for those runs.

The reason people rate it higher is because they think our batting side is collapse prone. Which isn't a good way of thinking, in fact it's rather a negative way of thinking. And of course because Hafeez isn't popular, if it was someone else it'd have been received better. Tbh Hafeez most times these days looks out of form and a very shaky starter. It wouldn't be wrong to say that on that day Hafeez probably got a bit lucky that everything worked for him, on another day he could well have failed. It doesn't diminish the value of the inning's stand alone however (even though as a player, am unconvinced of his worth in the future, he's past it IMO).

Exactly that doesn't makes sense like your one didn't. Thing is, who's inning was more impact-ful, yes, when I use the word impact, You'll be like, it was definitely Hafeez's...

But, its hard to believe that anyone else could've played the role that Azhar did, no one in the batting order is capable of that, Babar has failed so many times handling pressure, his way is to dot the bowl again and again...Too young to take the charge and take the pressure off! Without Azhars innings, 243-3 was unreachable...India felt the pressure because the openers weren't giving away their wicket, and in return they made poor bowling changes with respect to their field setup.

Similarly, if Hafeez had gone out early, we would easily have made it to 320...yes the 57 may have been a 47 or even a 37 and that too by 2 or 3 different batsmen but the fact is that the main barrier was surpassed by the opening stand, Hafeez's job was to smack it off, something our tail-enders are quite good at.

Its hard to believe that we could've hardly surpassed 300 had Azhar gone earlier as the opponents would've gained a lot from that, But hafeez's earlier dismissal meant 243-4 if he had a duck, and thats still a very strong position to continue from!

 

[Arham_PakFan]

Azhar's,easily.

Him along with Fakhar set the tone for the rest of the innings.It allowed Babar and Hafeez to play freely.Brilliant innings nonetheless.

 

[msb314]

I have already dealt with this:



Hafeez faced the vast majority of deliveries in the last ten so it's no good putting the blame (solely) on Imad.

By your stats - that means Imad faced 21 balls in the last 7 and a half overs.

Of those - he hit two boundaries. One was a six off Jadeja and the other was a boundary off Bumrah.

Hence, Imad played 19 balls without hitting a boundary in the slog overs. That is very poor for a hard hitting AR. In fact, Hafeez's knock covered up Imad's deficiencies. If Pakistan had lost - Imad's innings would have been one of the major talking points of the game.

 

[ExplicitAI]

I voted Hafeez's instantly because his innings looked better in terms of pushing the score to 300+ but I actually feel that it's Azhar who played the better innings, if it wasn't for him then Fakhar and the other batsmen wouldn't have played the knocks that they respectively played. He killed the new ball and attacked the bowlers early such as the six off Ashwin.

 

[mak36]

By your stats - that means Imad faced 21 balls in the last 7 and a half overs.

Of those - he hit two boundaries. One was a six off Jadeja and the other was a boundary off Bumrah.

Hence, Imad played 19 balls without hitting a boundary in the slog overs. That is very poor for a hard hitting AR. In fact, Hafeez's knock covered up Imad's deficiencies. If Pakistan had lost - Imad's innings would have been one of the major talking points of the game.

Read the title again. It's an innings comparison of Azhar Ali v Hafeez. Not Hafeez v Imad. In any case, I am afraid your argument works against you.

As I have already told you, in the last 10 overs Hafeez faced the majority of deliveries (60%) so he is more culpable for the lack of boundaries in that period.

You have now mentioned the last seven and half overs. I am afraid that worsens your case. In the last 7 and half overs Hafeez again faced the majority of deliveries. He faced 26 deliveries and only hit 4 boundaries. To paraphrase you "that means he faced 22 deliveries without hitting a boundary in the slog overs. That is very poor for a hard hitting AR."

Last 5 overs is even worse, Hafeez faced 17 deliveries (again the majority of deliveries) and he managed to hit two boundaries. To paraphrase you "that means he faced 15 deliveries without hitting a boundary in the slog overs. That is very poor for a hard hitting AR."

You can't run away from the facts i'm afraid.