"Compare Virat Kohli with Babar Azam, not me" : Umar Akmal

[Mamoon]

Forgot to mention, how is being a top 10 batsman and having an average of 39 for up to 81% of his career an "excuse"?

Those are actually achievements and very good ones.

You know things are bad when you have to rely on ICC rankings to justify that a player has been good, simply because you cannot pinpoint innings that helped the team win matches against quality opposition.

When you have to use ICC rankings to prove that a player is quality, then he actually isn't, because the quality players have performances that stand out and everyone is aware of them.

Please list out his match-winning performances against India, South Africa, Australia, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, etc., and how he made a telling difference with his exuberant talent. At the end of the day, that is what makes a player quality.

If you do, I will accept that he is not a mediocre player, but if you fail, the truth will be there for everyone to see. Please don't back out.

 

[Barragan]

You know things are bad when you have to rely on ICC rankings to justify that a player has been good, simply because you cannot pinpoint innings that helped the team win matches against quality opposition.

When you have to use ICC rankings to prove that a player is quality, then he actually isn't, because the quality players have performances that stand out and everyone is aware of them.

Please list out his match-winning performances against India, South Africa, Australia, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, etc., and how he made a telling difference with his exuberant talent. At the end of the day, that is what makes a player quality.

If you do, I will accept that he is not a mediocre player, but if you fail, the truth will be there for everyone to see. Please don't back out.

All of a sudden, the rankings don't matter anymore?

 

[Mamoon]

After all this time, you come up with this?

Yes, I'm sorry if I took long. Unfortunately he has so many failures that looking through all of them is a very tedious task. When you are looking at the record of a quality player with few failures, it is easy to highlight them.

Did you forget, the timings of those 5 innings at no. 4?

Was that the reason why he failed to kick on in any of those 5 innings even though he had the time? Was that the reason he played pathetic shots 4 times out of 5?

Yeah, he didn't do well in the only consecutive games (two) he got against SL, but that is hardly enough to judge a player based on his abilities of application.

Is throwing your wicket away time and time again irrespective of the batting position and failing to take your team home time and time again not a proof that he lacks application?

Also, did you quickly forget his 16 or 17 50+ scores, when he has had 25+ overs to bat?

I ask you again, don't ignore this time. Please list those 50+ scores and show me how he could not have done any better in those circumstances, and why it was not possible for him to score a hundred, given how immensely talented he is?

Lastly, I bet you weren't expecting him to be the 2nd highest runs scorer at no. 5, afer thinking he was failure there?

Oh for sure I wasn't, but is that supposed to be a shield to defend his mediocrity? How many of those innings at 5 can be considered as great innings and how many of those helped Pakistan win matches against quality opposition?

 

[Mamoon]

All of a sudden, the rankings don't matter anymore?

So I get it. You cannot answer this part:

Please list out his match-winning performances against India, South Africa, Australia, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, etc., and how he made a telling difference with his exuberant talent. At the end of the day, that is what makes a player quality.

and I don't blame you, because you cannot list something that hasn't happened.

As far as the ICC player rankings are concerned, as I said, if you have to rely on rankings to prove that a player is quality, then that player probably isn't.

How often do you see people use rankings to justify that players like Kohli, Root, Smith, de Villiers, Starc, Anderson etc. etc. are quality? they don't have to, because their performance speaks for itself.

It is also funny how low you have set the bar for a player who is supposedly immensely talented. 'But he averaged 40 in 3,000 BCE and was in the top 10 rankings.'

You are making it sound as if he averaged 50 and was ranked number 1 before he started to regress. He was very
good at some point, because that is what an average of close to 40 and a top 10 ranking is, but then he started to slide and has had a very poor run since 2014.

So a very good start to a career combined with a very poor run in the last few years means that overall, he has a mediocre/average/par/substandard/ordinary career so far.

Again, where lies the problem? Do you want me to:

a) Agree that he is a great player because he averaged close to 40 and was in the top 10 rankings years ago?

b) Defend his failures and blame them on everyone else but him?

c) Agree that he doesn't lack application because he has scored runs at number 5, never-mind the fact that he has not won matches for Pakistan against quality opposition and kept throwing his wicket away in crucial times?

 

[Barragan]

Yes, I'm sorry if I took long. Unfortunately he has so many failures that looking through all of them is a very tedious task. When you are looking at the record of a quality player with few failures, it is easy to highlight them

Yes, I'm sorry if I took long. Unfortunately he has so many failures that looking through all of them is a very tedious task. When you are looking at the record of a quality player with few failures, it is easy to highlight them.

There are only 5 innings played at no. 4 and you highlighted them all, but it took you so long and made an essay about each innings.

Was that the reason why he failed to kick on in any of those 5 innings even though he had the time? Was that the reason he played pathetic shots 4 times out of 5?

As for the time stuff, I'm talking about when those innings were played and NOT when he came to crease.

Is throwing your wicket away time and time again irrespective of the batting position and failing to take your team home time and time again not a proof that he lacks application?

Why does he score more 50's, when presented with the opportunity to bat 25+ overs?

Clear sign, that he does apply himself and finishing is way different from application.

Someone who scores 30 with 15-10 overs and takes their side home, but how is that a sign of application?

I ask you again, don't ignore this time. Please list those 50+ scores and show me how he could not have done any better in those circumstances, and why it was not possible for him to score a hundred, given how immensely talented he is?

Didn't ignore it before either.

He didn't get hundreds, but did he help the team rebuild and shown application?

Oh for sure I wasn't, but is that supposed to be a shield to defend his mediocrity? How many of those innings at 5 can be considered as great innings and how many of those helped Pakistan win matches against quality opposition?

Doesn't need to win matches, just needs to score runs and that's why he breached the top 10 and 81% career averaged 39.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Umar will come good if he opens in ODIs. He is among our top 3 LO bats.

 

[marlonbrowndo]

Agree with [MENTION=136113]Barragan[/MENTION] here. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] needs to understand that we are talking about Pakistan here. No one is saying Umar is a world beater but he is comfortably our most dynamic batsman and actually had a good career apart from 2013 and the past year. Despite this bad patch and a lack of brain cells he has good stats for Pakistan. Make him open with 2 fielders out and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Barragan]

So I get it. You cannot answer this part:

Please list out his match-winning performances against India, South Africa, Australia, England, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, etc., and how he made a telling difference with his exuberant talent. At the end of the day, that is what makes a player quality.

and I don't blame you, because you cannot list something that hasn't happened.

As far as the ICC player rankings are concerned, as I said, if you have to rely on rankings to prove that a player is quality, then that player probably isn't.

How often do you see people use rankings to justify that players like Kohli, Root, Smith, de Villiers, Starc, Anderson etc. etc. are quality? they don't have to, because their performance speaks for itself.

It is also funny how low you have set the bar for a player who is supposedly immensely talented. 'But he averaged 40 in 3,000 BCE and was in the top 10 rankings.'

You are making it sound as if he averaged 50 and was ranked number 1 before he started to regress. He was very
good at some point, because that is what an average of close to 40 and a top 10 ranking is, but then he started to slide and has had a very poor run since 2014.

So a very good start to a career combined with a very poor run in the last few years means that overall, he has a mediocre/average/par/substandard/ordinary career so far.

Again, where lies the problem? Do you want me to:

a) Agree that he is a great player because he averaged close to 40 and was in the top 10 rankings years ago?

b) Defend his failures and blame them on everyone else but him?

c) Agree that he doesn't lack application because he has scored runs at number 5, never-mind the fact that he has not won matches for Pakistan against quality opposition and kept throwing his wicket away in crucial times?

Read above.

 

[Barragan]

Agree with [MENTION=136113]Barragan[/MENTION] here. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] needs to understand that we are talking about Pakistan here. No one is saying Umar is a world beater but he is comfortably our most dynamic batsman and actually had a good career apart from 2013 and the past year. Despite this bad patch and a lack of brain cells he has good stats for Pakistan. Make him open with 2 fielders out and you'll see what I mean.

For up to 81% of his career he averaged 39 and he thinks it's "mediocre".

 

[Rayyman]

For up to 81% of his career he averaged 39 and he thinks it's "mediocre".

What about the other 19%?
Because if we take the stats of ATGs like Mahela, Inzi, Sachin, Sanath, etc. we will see that their averages get lower because of their large declines at the end of their careers. So the averages go up if we disclude these declines. But we don't disclude these declines. Nobody says Sanath averages 47, because he didn't. If I show you Mahela's peak, I can tell that he averaged 45+. You can't just pick selective periods.

 

[rhony]

Agree with [MENTION=136113]Barragan[/MENTION] here. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] needs to understand that we are talking about Pakistan here. No one is saying Umar is a world beater but he is comfortably our most dynamic batsman and actually had a good career apart from 2013 and the past year. Despite this bad patch and a lack of brain cells he has good stats for Pakistan. Make him open with 2 fielders out and you'll see what I mean.

It is really strange that everybody thinks UA will be a good opener except for the people that matter- Selectors and Team Management. He has begged for that spot for years and the fans' seem to agree including myself. Why isn't the team management listening? Is there something that we are missing?

 

[Statsman]

Axar Patel was ranked in top 10 of ICC bowling charts.

Hafeez has been a chart topper in all rounders.

If ICC ODI player rankings are completely accurate representation of a player's calibre then Hafeez is one of the greatest all rounders the game has seen and Axar is a top upcoming spin talent.

 

[LastManstanding]

 

[Mamoon]

Agree with [MENTION=136113]Barragan[/MENTION] here. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] needs to understand that we are talking about Pakistan here. No one is saying Umar is a world beater but he is comfortably our most dynamic batsman and actually had a good career apart from 2013 and the past year. Despite this bad patch and a lack of brain cells he has good stats for Pakistan. Make him open with 2 fielders out and you'll see what I mean.

Their point in sugar-coating a player because others in his team have been worse than him. His performance can be looked at in isolation, being relatively better than x and y only matters when the argument is about whether a player deserves to get selected or not.

I have never said that Umar should be dropped for good. He is one of the few players we have who can play aggressively, so he deserves to play.

However, without comparing him to other Pakistani batsmen, how has Umar's career been so far? One word: mediocre and that's all.

Just because some of the other players have been worse than him does not him make him any less mediocre. It is similar to how some Amir fans project him as a world class bowler. Since his return, he has been rubbish in Tests and the PSL over two seasons, but just because he is relatively better than others does not mean that he is immune to scrutiny and criticism.

Same logic is being applied here. ''pls don't call Umar's career mediocre because he has been better than xyz''. Sorry but that's nonsense.

 

[Mamoon]

There are only 5 innings played at no. 4 and you highlighted them all, but it took you so long and made an essay about each innings.

Yes I had to write an essay to negate the myth that you were peddling.

As for the time stuff, I'm talking about when those innings were played and NOT when he came to crease.

Which is just another excuse to justify his failures. Sarfraz has also been all over the place in terms of batting position but he has performed well.

A good player can have 1 reason to succeed and a mediocre player can have 99 excuses to fail. Umar has talent but because he is incredibly dumb and has a lazy attitude, he has so far developed into a mediocre player with a mediocre career.

Umar did not fail to play many quality innings at 4 and 5 in numerous not because of the time factor but because he is not good enough to construct an innings. That is why play him as an opener where he might give Pakistan a flying start with his wild slogs before the inevitable self-destruction.

Why does he score more 50's, when presented with the opportunity to bat 25+ overs?

Why is that a surprise? This holds true for every player. Why does Afridi have more hundreds as an opener than in the lower-order? How does that prove that he knows how to construct an innings and does not throw his wicket away in pathetic fashion time and time again?

Clear sign, that he does apply himself and finishing is way different from application.

Someone who scores 30 with 15-10 overs and takes their side home, but how is that a sign of application?[/quote]

Scoring a 50 and then throwing it away every single time with a wild slog when he had the opportunity to score big is clearly a sign of lack of application.

Finishing matches is a combination of match awareness, application and mental strength. Match-awareness because you need to have the intelligence to understand the situation and what you need to do in order to take your team home.

Which bowlers to target, which bowlers to be vary against, which areas to hit, how to manipulate the field etc. etc., and the application and mental strength go hand-in-hand because you have to put that application into practice and trust yourself that you will come on top.

Umar is a spectacular failure in all three aspects. He has no match awareness, no application and no mental strength. That is why play him as opener where you generally do not need these three qualities.

Didn't ignore it before either.

He didn't get hundreds, but did he help the team rebuild and shown application?

He only helped his stats, because he threw it away time and time again and failed to win the match for his team. That is why in spite of having a mediocre career and having absolutely no impact in terms of winning big matches for Pakistan, you are arguing that he is not a mediocre player and has done well x number of times.

Umar has played some impactful match-winning knocks in T20Is, but in ODIs, he has mostly been a soft performer whose runs have lacked the impact to help his team win, not because he was let down his teammates but because he kept throwing his wicket away at crucial junctions time and time again.

Doesn't need to win matches, just needs to score runs and that's why he breached the top 10 and 81% career averaged 39.

Yes he does not have to do anything. He does not have to be a good chaser, he does not have to be a good finisher, he does not have to be a match-winner.

All he needs to do is slog his way to a few 30s, 40s, and 50s so that he can break into the top 10 rankings and have a success rate of more than 80%.

Who cares if he fails to win matches for his team, the fact that he always throws his wicket away after getting a start which massively hurts the prospects of his team winning matches does not matter.

 

[Barragan]

What about the other 19%?
Because if we take the stats of ATGs like Mahela, Inzi, Sachin, Sanath, etc. we will see that their averages get lower because of their large declines at the end of their careers. So the averages go up if we disclude these declines. But we don't disclude these declines. Nobody says Sanath averages 47, because he didn't. If I show you Mahela's peak, I can tell that he averaged 45+. You can't just pick selective periods.

The point being made, is it considered "mediocre" overall?

 

[Barragan]

Yes I had to write an essay to negate the myth that you were peddling.

Yeah, which were played one in 19 Jun 2010, 21 Feb 2012 (two years later), 11 Mar 2012 (weeks away) and two consecutive chances in Aug 2014 (only time he got consecutive chances).

If you are holding onto those 5 innings at no. 4, which were years or months apart, then you're seriosuly clutching at straws.

Which is just another excuse to justify his failures. Sarfraz has also been all over the place in terms of batting position but he has performed well.


A good player can have 1 reason to succeed and a mediocre player can have 99 excuses to fail. Umar has talent but because he is incredibly dumb and has a lazy attitude, he has so far developed into a mediocre player with a mediocre career.

Akmal has also done well and again I'll reiterate, how he reached the top 10 and maintained an average near 40 for 94 matches.

Doesn't sound like failure to me.

Umar did not fail to play many quality innings at 4 and 5 in numerous not because of the time factor but because he is not good enough to construct an innings. That is why play him as an opener where he might give Pakistan a flying start with his wild slogs before the inevitable self-destruction.

LOL

Again you ignore the his 50+ stat because let's face it, what else can you do?

You have no other argument.

Why is that a surprise? This holds true for every player. Why does Afridi have more hundreds as an opener than in the lower-order? How does that prove that he knows how to construct an innings and does not throw his wicket away in pathetic fashion time and time again?

But you said, he didn't have any application, but yet you're are saying it is pretty "obvious" for him to score 50's, when given more time?

Kind of conflicting yourself.

As for the Afridi argument, how many games has he played?

Just goes to show where you're going by bringing in Afridi now.

Scoring a 50 and then throwing it away every single time with a wild slog when he had the opportunity to score big is clearly a sign of lack of application.

Finishing matches is a combination of match awareness, application and mental strength. Match-awareness because you need to have the intelligence to understand the situation and what you need to do in order to take your team home.

How is finishing the same as application?

Also, you forget he tops the hundred run chart at no. 6, but you still live in denial.

Which bowlers to target, which bowlers to be vary against, which areas to hit, how to manipulate the field etc. etc., and the application and mental strength go hand-in-hand because you have to put that application into practice and trust yourself that you will come on top.

Umar is a spectacular failure in all three aspects. He has no match awareness, no application and no mental strength. That is why play him as opener where you generally do not need these three qualities.

That's why he was successful for 81% of his career.

If Akmal is so bad, then are you saying intl. cricket is mediocre and players shouldn't be judged on intl. performances?

He only helped his stats, because he threw it away time and time again and failed to win the match for his team. That is why in spite of having a mediocre career and having absolutely no impact in terms of winning big matches for Pakistan, you are arguing that he is not a mediocre player and has done well x number of times.

Umar has played some impactful match-winning knocks in T20Is, but in ODIs, he has mostly been a soft performer whose runs have lacked the impact to help his team win, not because he was let down his teammates but because he kept throwing his wicket away at crucial junctions time and time again.



Yes he does not have to do anything. He does not have to be a good chaser, he does not have to be a good finisher, he does not have to be a match-winner.

All he needs to do is slog his way to a few 30s, 40s, and 50s so that he can break into the top 10 rankings and have a success rate of more than 80%.

Who cares if he fails to win matches for his team, the fact that he always throws his wicket away after getting a start which massively hurts the prospects of his team winning matches does not matter.

Your Afridi argument might come in handy on this one.

He wins matches, but hasn't scored regularly, so what's your point?

We should have more Afridi's in the team.

 

[Bilal7]

This waa such a poorly written article. Apparently, Babar being Akmal's cousin is interesting and McCullum is a "legendary batsman".

As for Babar, he can definitely become Pakistan's Kohli.

 

[Mamoon]

Yeah, which were played one in 19 Jun 2010, 21 Feb 2012 (two years later), 11 Mar 2012 (weeks away) and two consecutive chances in Aug 2014 (only time he got consecutive chances).

If you are holding onto those 5 innings at no. 4, which were years or months apart, then you're seriosuly clutching at straws.

The irony.

Am I the one clutching at straws here, when you are one who has put forth every excuse under and beyond the sun to justify that Umar has not had a mediocre career so far?

Yes I am holding on to these 5 innings at number 4 and 30+ innings at number 5, where he could not convert any of those starts into something big and kept throwing his wicket over and over and over again, which did not help the team in any way.

Oh yes I forgot, he does not need to win matches for his team; he just has to slog his way to 40s and 50s and then throw his wicket away so that he can maintain a decent looking average and hover around the top 10 rankings.

Too bad, he can't do any of those things anymore. How many innings since his last 50 in ODI cricket?

Btw, what is the excuse for his mediocre PSL this year?

Akmal has also done well and again I'll reiterate, how he reached the top 10 and maintained an average near 40 for 94 matches.

Doesn't sound like failure to me.

He can get 15 ducks in 15 innings and he will still not look like a failure to you, because he averaged around 40 few years ago and was in the top 10 rankings.

Again you ignore the his 50+ stat because let's face it, what else can you do?

You have no other argument.

Oh no, I have plenty of arguments. I have explained how Umar has been a flop since 2014, I have explained how Umar is a dumb batsman who doesn't learn from his mistakes, I have explained how Umar does not have the temperament and composure finish games and chase down totals, and I have also explained how Umar lacks the mentality to construct an innings which is why in 30+ innings at 4 and 5, he was not able to convert his starts into anything substantial.

You on the other hand have refused to budge from the 'but look at the number of 50s' argument and don't want to consider the fact that he did not convert any of those knocks into something big and kept throwing his wicket away which did not help his team.

What good were his 91 vs Sri Lanka in 2011 and the 70 odd vs Sri Lanka in the Asia Cup in 2014 when he threw his wicket away recklessly both times, when Pakistan were in a position to win the match and as a result, they couldn't? and these are just two examples. There is a long list of Umar throwing it away and contributing to Pakistan losing the match.

Oh yes sorry, I forgot. He doesn't need to win matches for Pakistan, he just has to score runs to boost his stats and then throw it away, it is the responsibility of the other players to try and win matches for the team.

But you said, he didn't have any application, but yet you're are saying it is pretty "obvious" for him to score 50's, when given more time?

Kind of conflicting yourself.

Where is the conflict?

He obviously does not have any application and that is why he keeps throwing his wicket away after getting a start, and which is why he does not have a single big score batting at 4 and 5 in 30+ innings. If that is not lack of application, what is?

As for the Afridi argument, how many games has he played?

Just goes to show where you're going by bringing in Afridi now.

Where am I going? I brought Afridi to explain how your logic of him scoring more 50s at number 5 (to prove that he has temperament and application) is ridiculously flawed because any batsman, even if he is a slogger like Afridi, would score more runs at a higher batting position simply because there is more time for him to score runs.

Afridi has more hundreds as an opener than at any other position. Why? does that prove that he has temperament? No it does not. It simply means that he got more time to bat and was able to convert some of those starts. Quite a few times, Afridi remained not out at the end of the innings when he was batting down the order. If he would have opened, maybe he would have converted a few of those innings into hundreds as well.

Again, this does not prove that Afridi has temperament and application, which is why your argument of 'Umar scoring more 50s at number 5' is a flawed one.

How is finishing the same as application?


Also, you forget he tops the hundred run chart at no. 6, but you still live in denial.

Application is part of chasing/finishing. To be a successful finisher, you need match-awareness and application. Umar is a flop in both departments.

You need match-awareness to know what you have to do to win the match for your team, how to pace your innings, which bowlers to target etc. You need application to put those mental calculations into practice. It is all good knowing what to do and how to plan your innings but it is of no use if you cannot put it into practice.

Some players have both (Kohli, Dhoni, Bevan), some players have neither (Umar) and some players have only one of those things. Misbah is a good example, he was good match-awareness but lacks that extra bit of talent to execute it, which is why he has brought Pakistan close many times but has not been able to take them over the line.

However, I'm just repeating myself because I have explained all of this already but it flew over your head.

That's why he was successful for 81% of his career.

If Akmal is so bad, then are you saying intl. cricket is mediocre and players shouldn't be judged on intl. performances?

81% again.

Total failure since 2014, not a 50 in God knows how many ODIs, the average has dropped to early 30s from around 40, he is now ranked 68th but he is still a success because he was good few years back and had a health average and ranking, which makes up most of the matches in that 81%, because until recently he has not been good enough to get into the team for about 2 years.

Your logic is as absurd as if I say that Tendulkar and Kohli have been failures in ODIs because they have scored 50+ only 32% and 38% respectively.

I get it that you are a massive fan of Umar and love to live in denial, but please have some perception if it not too much to ask. You are going down the route of W63L35 with your arguments.

Your Afridi argument might come in handy on this one.

He wins matches, but hasn't scored regularly, so what's your point?

We should have more Afridi's in the team.

Afridi is not a legend and he is not a great of the game, but as things stand, Umar is not fit to tie his shoelaces.

Afridi has won more matches for Pakistan than Umar ever will. His twin half-centuries in the WT20 2009 alone is better than anything Umar has done in his career.

Yes at this rate, Pakistan will win more matches if they have multiple Afridis in the team rather multiple Umar Akmals.

 

[Hamza_]

The irony.

Am I the one clutching at straws here, when you are one who has put forth every excuse under and beyond the sun to justify that Umar has not had a mediocre career so far?

Yes I am holding on to these 5 innings at number 4 and 30+ innings at number 5, where he could not convert any of those starts into something big and kept throwing his wicket over and over and over again, which did not help the team in any way.

Oh yes I forgot, he does not need to win matches for his team; he just has to slog his way to 40s and 50s and then throw his wicket away so that he can maintain a decent looking average and hover around the top 10 rankings.

Too bad, he can't do any of those things anymore. How many innings since his last 50 in ODI cricket?

Btw, what is the excuse for his mediocre PSL this year?



He can get 15 ducks in 15 innings and he will still not look like a failure to you, because he averaged around 40 few years ago and was in the top 10 rankings.


Oh no, I have plenty of arguments. I have explained how Umar has been a flop since 2014, I have explained how Umar is a dumb batsman who doesn't learn from his mistakes, I have explained how Umar does not have the temperament and composure finish games and chase down totals, and I have also explained how Umar lacks the mentality to construct an innings which is why in 30+ innings at 4 and 5, he was not able to convert his starts into anything substantial.

You on the other hand have refused to budge from the 'but look at the number of 50s' argument and don't want to consider the fact that he did not convert any of those knocks into something big and kept throwing his wicket away which did not help his team.

What good were his 91 vs Sri Lanka in 2011 and the 70 odd vs Sri Lanka in the Asia Cup in 2014 when he threw his wicket away recklessly both times, when Pakistan were in a position to win the match and as a result, they couldn't? and these are just two examples. There is a long list of Umar throwing it away and contributing to Pakistan losing the match.

Oh yes sorry, I forgot. He doesn't need to win matches for Pakistan, he just has to score runs to boost his stats and then throw it away, it is the responsibility of the other players to try and win matches for the team.



Where is the conflict?

He obviously does not have any application and that is why he keeps throwing his wicket away after getting a start, and which is why he does not have a single big score batting at 4 and 5 in 30+ innings. If that is not lack of application, what is?



Where am I going? I brought Afridi to explain how your logic of him scoring more 50s at number 5 (to prove that he has temperament and application) is ridiculously flawed because any batsman, even if he is a slogger like Afridi, would score more runs at a higher batting position simply because there is more time for him to score runs.

Afridi has more hundreds as an opener than at any other position. Why? does that prove that he has temperament? No it does not. It simply means that he got more time to bat and was able to convert some of those starts. Quite a few times, Afridi remained not out at the end of the innings when he was batting down the order. If he would have opened, maybe he would have converted a few of those innings into hundreds as well.

Again, this does not prove that Afridi has temperament and application, which is why your argument of 'Umar scoring more 50s at number 5' is a flawed one.




Application is part of chasing/finishing. To be a successful finisher, you need match-awareness and application. Umar is a flop in both departments.

You need match-awareness to know what you have to do to win the match for your team, how to pace your innings, which bowlers to target etc. You need application to put those mental calculations into practice. It is all good knowing what to do and how to plan your innings but it is of no use if you cannot put it into practice.

Some players have both (Kohli, Dhoni, Bevan), some players have neither (Umar) and some players have only one of those things. Misbah is a good example, he was good match-awareness but lacks that extra bit of talent to execute it, which is why he has brought Pakistan close many times but has not been able to take them over the line.

However, I'm just repeating myself because I have explained all of this already but it flew over your head.



81% again.

Total failure since 2014, not a 50 in God knows how many ODIs, the average has dropped to early 30s from around 40, he is now ranked 68th but he is still a success because he was good few years back and had a health average and ranking, which makes up most of the matches in that 81%, because until recently he has not been good enough to get into the team for about 2 years.

Your logic is as absurd as if I say that Tendulkar and Kohli have been failures in ODIs because they have scored 50+ only 32% and 38% respectively.

I get it that you are a massive fan of Umar and love to live in denial, but please have some perception if it not too much to ask. You are going down the route of W63L35 with your arguments.



Afridi is not a legend and he is not a great of the game, but as things stand, Umar is not fit to tie his shoelaces.

Afridi has won more matches for Pakistan than Umar ever will. His twin half-centuries in the WT20 2009 alone is better than anything Umar has done in his career.

Yes at this rate, Pakistan will win more matches if they have multiple Afridis in the team rather multiple Umar Akmals.

Brilliant Post. [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] Perfectly described Akmal.

 

[LongHorn]

He sort of has a point. You can perhaps compare batsmen who bat between 3-5 but 6 is way too big a gap and requires completely different strategy.

Nehow these comparisons were good 3-4 years back, Kohli has over taken Akmal by miles with Kohli being the undisputed King of batting. This comparison reminds me of 2 footballer- Cristiano Ronaldo and Ricardo Quaresma. Both were earmarked to being superstars as youngsters. Some even felt Quaresma would end up being better than Ronaldo but Ronaldo overtook everyone with his sheer hard work and dedication which is exactly what Kohli has. Quaresma tho in my opinion more skillful has same issues like Umar Akmal. Overweight, lack of hunger and happy to settle with one good performance every now and then.

Very well spotted, our comparison is perfect

 

[Barragan]

The irony.

Am I the one clutching at straws here, when you are one who has put forth every excuse under and beyond the sun to justify that Umar has not had a mediocre career so far?

Yes I am holding on to these 5 innings at number 4 and 30+ innings at number 5, where he could not convert any of those starts into something big and kept throwing his wicket over and over and over again, which did not help the team in any way.

Oh yes I forgot, he does not need to win matches for his team; he just has to slog his way to 40s and 50s and then throw his wicket away so that he can maintain a decent looking average and hover around the top 10 rankings.

Too bad, he can't do any of those things anymore. How many innings since his last 50 in ODI cricket?

Btw, what is the excuse for his mediocre PSL this year?



He can get 15 ducks in 15 innings and he will still not look like a failure to you, because he averaged around 40 few years ago and was in the top 10 rankings.


Oh no, I have plenty of arguments. I have explained how Umar has been a flop since 2014, I have explained how Umar is a dumb batsman who doesn't learn from his mistakes, I have explained how Umar does not have the temperament and composure finish games and chase down totals, and I have also explained how Umar lacks the mentality to construct an innings which is why in 30+ innings at 4 and 5, he was not able to convert his starts into anything substantial.

You on the other hand have refused to budge from the 'but look at the number of 50s' argument and don't want to consider the fact that he did not convert any of those knocks into something big and kept throwing his wicket away which did not help his team.

What good were his 91 vs Sri Lanka in 2011 and the 70 odd vs Sri Lanka in the Asia Cup in 2014 when he threw his wicket away recklessly both times, when Pakistan were in a position to win the match and as a result, they couldn't? and these are just two examples. There is a long list of Umar throwing it away and contributing to Pakistan losing the match.

Oh yes sorry, I forgot. He doesn't need to win matches for Pakistan, he just has to score runs to boost his stats and then throw it away, it is the responsibility of the other players to try and win matches for the team.



Where is the conflict?

He obviously does not have any application and that is why he keeps throwing his wicket away after getting a start, and which is why he does not have a single big score batting at 4 and 5 in 30+ innings. If that is not lack of application, what is?



Where am I going? I brought Afridi to explain how your logic of him scoring more 50s at number 5 (to prove that he has temperament and application) is ridiculously flawed because any batsman, even if he is a slogger like Afridi, would score more runs at a higher batting position simply because there is more time for him to score runs.

Afridi has more hundreds as an opener than at any other position. Why? does that prove that he has temperament? No it does not. It simply means that he got more time to bat and was able to convert some of those starts. Quite a few times, Afridi remained not out at the end of the innings when he was batting down the order. If he would have opened, maybe he would have converted a few of those innings into hundreds as well.

Again, this does not prove that Afridi has temperament and application, which is why your argument of 'Umar scoring more 50s at number 5' is a flawed one.




Application is part of chasing/finishing. To be a successful finisher, you need match-awareness and application. Umar is a flop in both departments.

You need match-awareness to know what you have to do to win the match for your team, how to pace your innings, which bowlers to target etc. You need application to put those mental calculations into practice. It is all good knowing what to do and how to plan your innings but it is of no use if you cannot put it into practice.

Some players have both (Kohli, Dhoni, Bevan), some players have neither (Umar) and some players have only one of those things. Misbah is a good example, he was good match-awareness but lacks that extra bit of talent to execute it, which is why he has brought Pakistan close many times but has not been able to take them over the line.

However, I'm just repeating myself because I have explained all of this already but it flew over your head.



81% again.

Total failure since 2014, not a 50 in God knows how many ODIs, the average has dropped to early 30s from around 40, he is now ranked 68th but he is still a success because he was good few years back and had a health average and ranking, which makes up most of the matches in that 81%, because until recently he has not been good enough to get into the team for about 2 years.

Your logic is as absurd as if I say that Tendulkar and Kohli have been failures in ODIs because they have scored 50+ only 32% and 38% respectively.

I get it that you are a massive fan of Umar and love to live in denial, but please have some perception if it not too much to ask. You are going down the route of W63L35 with your arguments.



Afridi is not a legend and he is not a great of the game, but as things stand, Umar is not fit to tie his shoelaces.

Afridi has won more matches for Pakistan than Umar ever will. His twin half-centuries in the WT20 2009 alone is better than anything Umar has done in his career.

Yes at this rate, Pakistan will win more matches if they have multiple Afridis in the team rather multiple Umar Akmals.

The problem is, you think his career started in 2015 or something.

He has averaged near 40 for 81% of his career, but yet you compare him to Afridi - who has averaged in the 20's for majority of his career.

Pretty easy to understand, 81>19.

You say he doesn't have application, but he scores more 50's when given the time to play 25+ overs, but then you say he that is obvious?

Sounds pretty contradictory.

He shouldn't be scoring more 50's when given the time.

He is the 6th highest run scorer at no. 6, 2nd highest at no. 5 with 31 innings played, joint highest number of 100's scored at no. 6 and not to forget, a top 10 batsman.

Yeah, but let's all focus on those 5 innings at no. 4, which were far apart from each other.

If he was so "mediocre", then why has he accomplished so much?

Is intl. cricket so sub-par, that a mediocre individual can average near 40 for 94 matches and top all time charts?