Did Pakistan really get to Number 1 in T20Is by beating weaker sides?

[Boiz Played Well]

Two arguments I keep seeing in the threads is that Pakistan got to the top of the T20i rankings by beating minnows AND/OR by beating lower-strength sides of top teams.

I was genuinely curious to see if this was true on both fronts so I did a bit digging. Here's what I found.

Cumulatively, Pakistan has been the No. 1 for 710 days as on Nov. 8, 2019. This is the second highest record, first being Sri Lanka who have been No. 1 for a cumulative 1064 days.

On Sept. 10, 2016, Pakistan were the 7th ranked T20i team in the world. So I have calculated the matches they played since then to date. Now let's turn to the arguments themselves.

1. The "Minnow-Bashing" Argument:​

Total Matches Played: 39
Won: 26
Lost: 12
N/R: 1

Wins (out of 26) vs. Individual Teams:

1. West Indies: 6 wins (23% of total wins)
2a. Australia: 5 wins (19% of total wins)
2b. New Zealand: 5 wins (19% of total wins)
3. Sri Lanka: 3 wins (11% of total wins)
4a. Scotland: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
4b. Zimbabwe: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
4c. World XI: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
5. South Africa: 1 win (4% of total wins)

If we are to say "minnow" in the strictest sense of the word, then the only minnows on this list could be Scotland and Zimbabwe. That still means Pakistan won 84% of its games against higher-ranked teams of the top-10.

If we are to further exclude SL, that still leaves 75% wins against quality sides. I am not excluding WI because 3/6 wins against them included the likes of Pollard, Narine, Lewis and Brathwaite who would hardly qualify as half-strength. The next 3 wins in Karachi were against a lower-strength WI. Leaving 62% of wins against better sides.

2. The "Strength of the Side" argument:
​

The other argument can be made about the strengths of these sides. So I've listed the squads of each of the wins against WI, AUS, NZ, World XI and South Africa. You can judge the strength of these sides for yourself.

WI: E. Lewis, C. Walton, M. Samuels, L. Simmons, K. Pollard, S. Narine, R. Powell, C. Brathwaite, J. Holder, S. Badree, K. Williams, J. Mohammed, A. Fletcher, D. Ramdin, K. Paul, R. Emrit, V. Permaul, O. Smith, A. McCarthy.

AUS: D. Short, A. Finch, T. Head, G. Maxwell, C. Lynn, N. Maddinson, M. Stoinis, A. Carey, A. Agar, A.J. Tye, J. Richardson, B. Stanlake, J. Wildermuth, B. McDermott, N. Coulter-Nile, A. Zampa, M. Marsh, N. Lyon.

NZ: M. Guptill, C. Munro, G. Philiips, K. Williamson, T. Bruce, R. Taylor, A. Kitchen, C. de Grandhomme, M. Santner, T. Southee, I. Sodhi, S. Rance, T. Blundell, T. Boult, M. Chapman, T. Seifert, L. Ferguson, C. Anderson, A. Milne, A. Patel.

World XI: T. Iqbal, H. Amla, T. Paine, F. du Plessis, D. Miller, G. Elliot, T. Perrara, D. Sammy, B. Cutting, M. Morkel, I. Tahir, G. Bailey, S. Badree, P. Collingwood.

SA: R. Hendricks, J. Malan, van der Dussen, H. Klaasen, D. Miller, A. Phehlukwayo, C. Morris, B. Hendricks, C. Dala, L. Simpala, T. Shamsi.

----

During this time Pakistan did not play India. And played one match against England which they lost.

So what do you think? Was Pakistan's rise to the top of T20i cricket due to playing minnows or low-strength sides?

 

[Rana]

Have not read it yet but looks like POTW stuff

 

[Mobashir]

Two argument I keep saying in the threads is that Pakistan got to the top of the T20i rankings by beating minnows AND/OR by beating lower-strength sides of top teams.

I was genuinely curious to see if this was true on both fronts so I did a bit digging. Here's what I found.

Cumulatively, Pakistan has been the No. 1 for 710 days as on Nov. 8, 2019. This is the second highest record, first being Sri Lanka who have been No. 1 for a cumulative 1064 days.

On Sept. 10, 2016, Pakistan were the 7th ranked T20i team in the world. So I have calculated the matches they played since then to date. Now let's turn to the arguments themselves.

1. The "Minnow-Bashing" Argument:​

Total Matches Played: 39
Won: 26
Lost: 12
N/R: 1

Wins (out of 26) vs. Individual Teams:

1. West Indies: 6 wins (23% of total wins)
2a. Australia: 5 wins (19% of total wins)
2b. New Zealand: 5 wins (19% of total wins)
3. Sri Lanka: 3 wins (11% of total wins)
4a. Scotland: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
4b. Zimbabwe: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
4c. World XI: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
5. South Africa: 1 win (4% of total wins)

If we are to say "minnow" in the strictest sense of the word, then the only minnows on this list could be Scotland and Zimbabwe. That still means Pakistan won 84% of its games against higher-ranked teams of the top-10.

If we are to further exclude SL, that still leaves 75% wins against quality sides. I am not excluding WI because 3/6 wins against them included the likes of Pollard, Narine, Lewis and Brathwaite who would hardly qualify as half-strength. The next 3 wins in Karachi were against a lower-strength WI. Leaving 62% of wins against better sides.

2. The "Strength of the Side" argument:
​

The other argument can be made about the strengths of these sides. So I've listed the squads of each of the wins against WI, AUS, NZ, World XI and South Africa. You can judge the strength of these sides for yourself.

WI: E. Lewis, C. Walton, M. Samuels, L. Simmons, K. Pollard, S. Narine, R. Powell, C. Brathwaite, J. Holder, S. Badree, K. Williams, J. Mohammed, A. Fletcher, D. Ramdin, K. Paul, R. Emrit, V. Permaul, O. Smith, A. McCarthy.

AUS: D. Short, A. Finch, T. Head, G. Maxwell, C. Lynn, N. Maddinson, M. Stoinis, A. Carey, A. Agar, A.J. Tye, J. Richardson, B. Stanlake, J. Wildermuth, B. McDermott, N. Coulter-Nile, A. Zampa, M. Marsh, N. Lyon.

NZ: M. Guptill, C. Munro, G. Philiips, K. Williamson, T. Bruce, R. Taylor, A. Kitchen, C. de Grandhomme, M. Santner, T. Southee, I. Sodhi, S. Rance, T. Blundell, T. Boult, M. Chapman, T. Seifert, L. Ferguson, C. Anderson, A. Milne, A. Patel.

World XI: T. Iqbal, H. Amla, T. Paine, F. du Plessis, D. Miller, G. Elliot, T. Perrara, D. Sammy, B. Cutting, M. Morkel, I. Tahir, G. Bailey, S. Badree, P. Collingwood.

SA: R. Hendricks, J. Malan, van der Dussen, H. Klaasen, D. Miller, A. Phehlukwayo, C. Morris, B. Hendricks, C. Dala, L. Simpala, T. Shamsi.

----

During this time Pakistan did not play India. And played one match against England which they lost.

So what do you think? Was Pakistan's rise to the top of T20i cricket due to playing minnows or low-strength sides?

Pakistan rise to the top was indeed because of playing low-strength sides but also because of not playing that much in SENA.
Credit to Babar and Amir for having 2 brilliant years.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

Another data set to consider would be win % vs each of the top teams during this period. That looks like this:

WI: 6/7 (86%)
AUS: 5/8 (63%)
NZ: 5/6 (83%)
SL: 2/5 (40%)
World XI: 2/3 (67%)
SA: 1/3 (33%)
ENG: 0/1 (0%)

 

[Boiz Played Well]

Pakistan rise to the top was indeed because of playing low-strength sides but also because of not playing that much in SENA.
Credit to Babar and Amir for having 2 brilliant years.

You're right about SENA. Of 9 completed SENA games during this time, Pakistan has won 3/9 (33%).

This recent AUS series took that it down even further from 43% to 33% lol.

 

[aloo paratha]

People also forget that we are always trying out new players in T20s as well. Shaheen played a lot of T20s to start his career, we think back to it as him being a full team member now, but he wasn't at the time. Players like Hussain Talat, Asif Ali, Shadab Khan all debuted for us during these times.

Even in the past 2 series, we've played the likes of Musa, Hasnain and Iftikhar who are new entities in this team.

 

[Ashmal]

It's not that only Pakistan was playing against weaker teams.

Check the strength of the SA and AUS sides that played against India last year, it was similar to the ones Pakistan played against earlier. So Pakistan should be given credit for the No. 1 ranking(on paper).

But it's true that AUS, Eng are the top 2 teams (at full-strength).

 

[Titan24]

Excellent work and analysis.

 

[Ashmal]

Another data set to consider would be win % vs each of the top teams during this period. That looks like this:

WI: 6/7 (86%)
AUS: 5/8 (63%)
NZ: 5/6 (83%)
SL: 2/5 (40%)
World XI: 2/3 (67%)
SA: 1/3 (33%)
ENG: 0/1 (0%)

Pak beat Eng in Eng in 2016 in a one-off game

 

[Boiz Played Well]

It's not that only Pakistan was playing against weaker teams.

Check the strength of the SA and AUS sides that played against India last year, it was similar to the ones Pakistan played against earlier. So Pakistan should be given credit for the No. 1 ranking(on paper).

But it's true that AUS, Eng are the top 2 teams (at full-strength).

That's true. Also to note, Pakistan has had much success against a strong NZ side multiple times. And this was the team which was fighting with PAK for the top spot back in 2017-18. These days though they're at No. 6.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

Pak beat Eng in Eng in 2016 in a one-off game

That's true. But as I mentioned my data collection started from Oct. 2016 onwards. The Sept. 2016 rankings release had Pakistan at no. 7.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

People also forget that we are always trying out new players in T20s as well. Shaheen played a lot of T20s to start his career, we think back to it as him being a full team member now, but he wasn't at the time. Players like Hussain Talat, Asif Ali, Shadab Khan all debuted for us during these times.

Even in the past 2 series, we've played the likes of Musa, Hasnain and Iftikhar who are new entities in this team.

You're right. The Pakistan teams have had a fair bit of fluidity as well. And the present team looks much less like the team which was most often picked while getting to or at No. 1. The likes of Faheem, Shadab and Hasan Ali were in different forms altogether.

 

[Captain caveman]

Yes! Yes! And of course yes!
We are rubbish, we cant hit 6s to save our lives (cheers amir for scoring our only six, perhaps you should open the batting).
We played weak teams, because other teams like to use t20s to test out new talent, we play our strongest team which includes two 40 years old.

Now the world t20 is less than a year away, teams are playing their full strength teams and we are getting demolished!

 

[The Viper]

The problem was that Pakistan became formidable in T20's in UAE where the pitches are really slow and 150 is a match winning score. The likes of Imad are harder to play there. These bowlers are exposed outside of the UAE. This has resulted in losees in Aus, Eng and SA.

Trutfully, only the win vs NZ in NZ is the really impressive and befitting of a number 1 team.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

The problem was that Pakistan became formidable in T20's in UAE where the pitches are really slow and 150 is a match winning score. The likes of Imad are harder to play there. These bowlers are exposed outside of the UAE. This has resulted in losees in Aus, Eng and SA.

Trutfully, only the win vs NZ in NZ is the really impressive and befitting of a number 1 team.

TBH I don't think building a "fortress" is a bad thing. Even in franchise cricket the logic used often is to win most of your home games by shaping your teams to home-pitch advantage. And then win a % of your away games. If Pakistan wins 50% of its SENA games and 80% of home games, that's fine with me.

 

[tyron_woodley]

TBH I don't think building a "fortress" is a bad thing. Even in franchise cricket the logic used often is to win most of your home games by shaping your teams to home-pitch advantage. And then win a % of your away games. If Pakistan wins 50% of its SENA games and 80% of home games, that's fine with me.

exactly. spot on. fortress at home is perfect. just try and scrape wins away or get close to the dead rubber situation and dominate at home. Nothing wrong with that. pakistan are elite at home. But yes I agree they should try to make it competitive away and not lose 2 0 or 3 0 though. win 1 game back.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

exactly. spot on. fortress at home is perfect. just try and scrape wins away or get close to the dead rubber situation and dominate at home. Nothing wrong with that. pakistan are elite at home. But yes I agree they should try to make it competitive away and not lose 2 0 or 3 0 though. win 1 game back.

I feel losing the SL series like that at home was a big mental blow. But in any case, not a lot of home T20i games scheduled in the near future so they'll have to work things out outside of their traditional comfort zone.

 

[Prince of Pakistan]

The fact remains that Pak benefited from those UAE wickets where 150 was enough for Pakistan's spinners. It hid our weaknesses which were modern day batting and pace bowling (relying on reverse swing).

Now Pak has to play on dead wickets (batting roads in Pak) and the real Pakistan is in front of us all. Even if Pakistan magically scores 170 the opposition will out do us. Simply because our batsmen except Babar are not good enough to cope with the RRR in T20's.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

The fact remains that Pak benefited from those UAE wickets where 150 was enough for Pakistan's spinners. It hid our weaknesses which were modern day batting and pace bowling (relying on reverse swing).

Now Pak has to play on dead wickets (batting roads in Pak) and the real Pakistan is in front of us all. Even if Pakistan magically scores 170 the opposition will out do us. Simply because our batsmen except Babar are not good enough to cope with the RRR in T20's.

How long do you think the transition from UAE back to Pakistan will take? Is it a matter of getting used to new (for much of the squad) home conditions?

 

[saeed5646]

Excellent thread .Agree with all points

 

[big_gamer007]

I always get a feeling every other team apart from Pakistan doesn't take bilateral T20i as seriously as they take world cup, Test matches, ODIs etc. The atmosphere in T20 is mostly casual and fun you don't see intensity which you see in crucial matches/series.

Having said that, Pakistan's T20i ranking is deserved. No one can take that away from them, if other teams don't take it seriously and Pakistan does they deserve the rank 1.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I dont think it matters a lot how we got to T20 number 1 ranking because at no point I thought we were number 1.

If Australia didnt play Smith, Warner and Starc in this series even Pakistan might have won 2-0..

And still the raucous cries of Top T20 team would have lingered on...

Pakistan is the ONLY team in the world to take T20 and its rankings seriously.

Thats the crux of the issue.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

I dont think it matters a lot how we got to T20 number 1 ranking because at no point I thought we were number 1.

If Australia didnt play Smith, Warner and Starc in this series even Pakistan might have won 2-0..

And still the raucous cries of Top T20 team would have lingered on...

Pakistan is the ONLY team in the world to take T20 and its rankings seriously.

Thats the crux of the issue.

I’m interested in this argument that the rankings don’t matter as much because teams don’t take them as seriously in T20s. Do you think rankings in other formats matter more so or is it the same there as well?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I’m interested in this argument that the rankings don’t matter as much because teams don’t take them as seriously in T20s. Do you think rankings in other formats matter more so or is it the same there as well?

I think with the WC a year away, teams will start playing 1st Choice XI.

India, Australia, England always throw up trumps when they play test matches and their entire onus is on making sure that bowlers are Test ready.

ODI rankings are also quite vague in my opinion. Teams do not play regularly against one another often enough to get them meaning and sense.

And as I said, you have to win what is facing you. Winning 11 series in a row is tough work, no matter what the opposition thrown at you.

Pakistan were a good T20 side for 02 years and they proved that by winning.

But were they the best? Meh? Do you think they are favorites for the WORLD CUP because they won 11 in a row ? Not really.

What does then that tell you about value of the T20? Thats my argument only.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

I think with the WC a year away, teams will start playing 1st Choice XI.

India, Australia, England always throw up trumps when they play test matches and their entire onus is on making sure that bowlers are Test ready.

ODI rankings are also quite vague in my opinion. Teams do not play regularly against one another often enough to get them meaning and sense.

And as I said, you have to win what is facing you. Winning 11 series in a row is tough work, no matter what the opposition thrown at you.

Pakistan were a good T20 side for 02 years and they proved that by winning.

But were they the best? Meh? Do you think they are favorites for the WORLD CUP because they won 11 in a row ? Not really.

What does then that tell you about value of the T20? Thats my argument only.

I guess that’s true. Especially about ODI rankings. With more T20 games now teams are playing so few ODIs it’s hard to judge if they are where they really should be.

On T20Is, I agree that if not the best, Pakistan were definitely a good team for two years. Contenders for a semis run but that is well and truly over now it seems.

 

[deep82]

I think Pakistan deserved No.1 ranking in T20 because they were consistent irrespective of quality of opposition. But the problem was

1 ) Top teams didn't take T20 cricket seriously after T20 WC 2016. Most of the top team focus was on tests and ODI hence they hardly played full strength and general impression was win/lose doesn't matter and T20 bilaterals were used to test new players only.

2) Playing in slow pitches of UAE. This negated the power games of Windies, NZ and Australia and Pakistan perfected a template of opening up with Imad and be was difficult to hit in the power play on low slow pitches and the average score hovers around 140 to 150 which Pakistan could able to chose with cautious approach.

3) Not enough cricket in SENA pitches in true wickets. Most of the winning streak was made on dead low pitches of UAE, WI etc.

Also No.1 team don't lose 8 out of 9 matches...it's just dilute the whole No.1 legacy and creates the doubt on " how can this team be No.1 for so long "

 

[Boiz Played Well]

I think Pakistan deserved No.1 ranking in T20 because they were consistent irrespective of quality of opposition. But the problem was

1 ) Top teams didn't take T20 cricket seriously after T20 WC 2016. Most of the top team focus was on tests and ODI hence they hardly played full strength and general impression was win/lose doesn't matter and T20 bilaterals were used to test new players only.

2) Playing in slow pitches of UAE. This negated the power games of Windies, NZ and Australia and Pakistan perfected a template of opening up with Imad and be was difficult to hit in the power play on low slow pitches and the average score hovers around 140 to 150 which Pakistan could able to chose with cautious approach.

3) Not enough cricket in SENA pitches in true wickets. Most of the winning streak was made on dead low pitches of UAE, WI etc.

Also No.1 team don't lose 8 out of 9 matches...it's just dilute the whole No.1 legacy and creates the doubt on " how can this team be No.1 for so long "

I agree with points 2 and 3. But I think 1 is a bit more arguable. If you look at the squads I posted, I'd say NZ was definitely taking it seriously. Australia was without Smith, Warner and Starc but the rest were there including Finch, Maxwell, Tye, Lynn, Carey, Coulternile etc. The initial WI squad had Pollard, Narine, Lewis and Brathwaite when they were arguably in good form.

My take is no one took it as seriously as Pakistan. But the oppositions took it more seriously than many are giving them credit for.

 

[Sean143]

Two argument I keep saying in the threads is that Pakistan got to the top of the T20i rankings by beating minnows AND/OR by beating lower-strength sides of top teams.

I was genuinely curious to see if this was true on both fronts so I did a bit digging. Here's what I found.

Cumulatively, Pakistan has been the No. 1 for 710 days as on Nov. 8, 2019. This is the second highest record, first being Sri Lanka who have been No. 1 for a cumulative 1064 days.

On Sept. 10, 2016, Pakistan were the 7th ranked T20i team in the world. So I have calculated the matches they played since then to date. Now let's turn to the arguments themselves.

1. The "Minnow-Bashing" Argument:​

Total Matches Played: 39
Won: 26
Lost: 12
N/R: 1

Wins (out of 26) vs. Individual Teams:

1. West Indies: 6 wins (23% of total wins)
2a. Australia: 5 wins (19% of total wins)
2b. New Zealand: 5 wins (19% of total wins)
3. Sri Lanka: 3 wins (11% of total wins)
4a. Scotland: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
4b. Zimbabwe: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
4c. World XI: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
5. South Africa: 1 win (4% of total wins)

If we are to say "minnow" in the strictest sense of the word, then the only minnows on this list could be Scotland and Zimbabwe. That still means Pakistan won 84% of its games against higher-ranked teams of the top-10.

If we are to further exclude SL, that still leaves 75% wins against quality sides. I am not excluding WI because 3/6 wins against them included the likes of Pollard, Narine, Lewis and Brathwaite who would hardly qualify as half-strength. The next 3 wins in Karachi were against a lower-strength WI. Leaving 62% of wins against better sides.

2. The "Strength of the Side" argument:
​

The other argument can be made about the strengths of these sides. So I've listed the squads of each of the wins against WI, AUS, NZ, World XI and South Africa. You can judge the strength of these sides for yourself.

WI: E. Lewis, C. Walton, M. Samuels, L. Simmons, K. Pollard, S. Narine, R. Powell, C. Brathwaite, J. Holder, S. Badree, K. Williams, J. Mohammed, A. Fletcher, D. Ramdin, K. Paul, R. Emrit, V. Permaul, O. Smith, A. McCarthy.

AUS: D. Short, A. Finch, T. Head, G. Maxwell, C. Lynn, N. Maddinson, M. Stoinis, A. Carey, A. Agar, A.J. Tye, J. Richardson, B. Stanlake, J. Wildermuth, B. McDermott, N. Coulter-Nile, A. Zampa, M. Marsh, N. Lyon.

NZ: M. Guptill, C. Munro, G. Philiips, K. Williamson, T. Bruce, R. Taylor, A. Kitchen, C. de Grandhomme, M. Santner, T. Southee, I. Sodhi, S. Rance, T. Blundell, T. Boult, M. Chapman, T. Seifert, L. Ferguson, C. Anderson, A. Milne, A. Patel.

World XI: T. Iqbal, H. Amla, T. Paine, F. du Plessis, D. Miller, G. Elliot, T. Perrara, D. Sammy, B. Cutting, M. Morkel, I. Tahir, G. Bailey, S. Badree, P. Collingwood.

SA: R. Hendricks, J. Malan, van der Dussen, H. Klaasen, D. Miller, A. Phehlukwayo, C. Morris, B. Hendricks, C. Dala, L. Simpala, T. Shamsi.

----

During this time Pakistan did not play India. And played one match against England which they lost.

So what do you think? Was Pakistan's rise to the top of T20i cricket due to playing minnows or low-strength sides?

After the SL series I had started a thread on pp, read it you would understand the extent of minnow bashing we did.

 

[subbu]

Ranking system is same for everyone
Pakistan deserves No.1 after great run in last 2 years ..now very few points difference btw top 4-5 teams ..

I think Pakistan game is more suited to UAE pitches ..only exception was 2-1 series win in NZL

I feel Pakistan team of 2007-2009 was more dynamic and much suited to T20 format with Afridi, Ajmal, Razzak, in form akmal, Malik, Hafeez and peak Gul, Amir and Tanvir

Only Babbar looks class in current line up

 

[PakPremi]

I never understood what it means other teams never took it seriously.Most teams played their T20 specialists and competed very hard during the games. They may have also tried some newbies, then so did Pak. The only fact is that Pak have now fallen big time due to bad selections and loss of form of their key players like Fakhar, Hasan Ali, Shadab etc, and age catching up on Hafeez and Malik.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

After the SL series I had started a thread on pp, read it you would understand the extent of minnow bashing we did.

Will do!

 

[Boiz Played Well]

I never understood what it means other teams never took it seriously.Most teams played their T20 specialists and competed very hard during the games. They may have also tried some newbies, then so did Pak. The only fact is that Pak have now fallen big time due to bad selections and loss of form of their key players like Fakhar, Hasan Ali, Shadab etc, and age catching up on Hafeez and Malik.

I think this is a sensible summation of the whole thing. Even though the ODI World Cup is done with for another four years now, I don’t see the teams who are playing it “not taking it seriously”. It’s definitely the time to try out new players but I don’t think any team goes out on the ground in an international fixture going like “meh would be cool if we win. Or not.”

 

[Boiz Played Well]

Ranking system is same for everyone
Pakistan deserves No.1 after great run in last 2 years ..now very few points difference btw top 4-5 teams ..

I think Pakistan game is more suited to UAE pitches ..only exception was 2-1 series win in NZL

I feel Pakistan team of 2007-2009 was more dynamic and much suited to T20 format with Afridi, Ajmal, Razzak, in form akmal, Malik, Hafeez and peak Gul, Amir and Tanvir

Only Babbar looks class in current line up

I read on the forum here somewhere about this exact thing. Pakistan definitely had an edge over most teams in the early days of T20 with the likes of Afridi, Razzaq, Gul etc. We had T20 specialists before they became a thing. Not the case as such these days.

 

[Corridor of Uncertainty]

You have to be badly agenda driven to take credit away from a team at no 1.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Pakistan is the country which takes the shortest format of the game most seriously among major cricket nations. Even in the Hong Kong super sixes days i remember when most teams sent their discarded and reserve players there Pakistan would send Wasim Akram. There is nothing to judge here through. Pakistan's achievements in the format and their rise to the #1 rank must be respected but it is also true that many top cricket nations haven't been too focussed on this format. India even till today picks players which have no hope of being in their ODI/world cup squads. Full time captain and premier bowlers are often rested for T20Is.

Most people will agree West Indies is historically and arguably currently the best T20 nation when they play their full strength squad. Pakistan are very good but will be taken apart by many teams when they play their full squads against them. With T20 world cup approaching in less than an year, Pakistan is getting exposed as usually casual T20 nations are back to being serious about this format for at least till the world cup.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

Pakistan is the country which takes the shortest format of the game most seriously among major cricket nations. Even in the Hong Kong super sixes days i remember when most teams sent their discarded and reserve players there Pakistan would send Wasim Akram. There is nothing to judge here through. Pakistan's achievements in the format and their rise to the #1 rank must be respected but it is also true that many top cricket nations haven't been too focussed on this format. India even till today picks players which have no hope of being in their ODI/world cup squads. Full time captain and premier bowlers are often rested for T20Is.

Most people will agree West Indies is historically and arguably currently the best T20 nation when they play their full strength squad. Pakistan are very good but will be taken apart by many teams when they play their full squads against them. With T20 world cup approaching in less than an year, Pakistan is getting exposed as usually casual T20 nations are back to being serious about this format for at least till the world cup.

I think West Indies will start gaining on T20s again. They sorted out their board problems. The likes of Pollard are back and he is captain. Phil Simmons is coach. They have a really good legspinner now in Hayden Walsh Jr. Batting line up which has the likes of Hetmyer, Pooran, Brandon King with Russell, Pollard, Brathwaite etc down the order. Narine should be fit too soon enough and they have young pacers in the bowling attack. They have the potential to be formidable the next two years.

 

[Mamoon]

One series vs India would have showed us the mirror. It would have been as big a reality check as the Asia Cup, where a Kohli-less India destroyed the Champions Trophy winners with practically two batsmen.

 

[Mobashir]

One series vs India would have showed us the mirror. It would have been as big a reality check as the Asia Cup, where a Kohli-less India destroyed the Champions Trophy winners with practically two batsmen.

Why? What different it would have been from the heavy losses against Sri Lanka and Australia?

A Kohli-less India at least did win something... Maybe if Kohli was playing they would have lost even the Asia cup.

 

[Mamoon]

Why? What different it would have been from the heavy losses against Sri Lanka and Australia?

A Kohli-less India at least did win something... Maybe if Kohli was playing they would have lost even the Asia cup.

People are blaming Misbah for the defeats against Sri Lanka and Australia. I am talking about the Mickey’s side whom we consider the best T20 side in the world. They would have been embarrassed by India just like they were embarrassed in the Asia Cup.

You are right about Kohli. Such a match-loser. I don’t understand why India don’t drop him from the side.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

One series vs India would have showed us the mirror. It would have been as big a reality check as the Asia Cup, where a Kohli-less India destroyed the Champions Trophy winners with practically two batsmen.

That's very likely. Pakistan were never unbeatable during their time at the top. My only qualm is putting down the team for an achievement which didn't seem likely two years when they were sitting at no. 7.

Players went out of form. Some aged out. For others the novelty factor wore off. But one is to assume the veil of ignorance in 2016 and ask would Pakistan beat NZ, AUS, WI or even their half-strength sides, most people would've said no.

It's like the 1992 vs. 1987 myth we discussed the other day. The myth that Pakistan is still No. 1 or No. 1 meant they were the best team out there is dangerous and wrong. But the myth of how they got--even if it's subjective--the top ranking, that is a story of introducing new players, playing to their strengths, utilizing home conditions and benching true TTFs. Pretty much turning away from the Misbah limited over days.

 

[Danyaalr01]

Another data set to consider would be win % vs each of the top teams during this period. That looks like this:

WI: 6/7 (86%)
AUS: 5/8 (63%)
NZ: 5/6 (83%)
SL: 2/5 (40%)
World XI: 2/3 (67%)
SA: 1/3 (33%)
ENG: 0/1 (0%)

England is 1/2, our winning streak started in 2016 when we beat England.

 

[Danyaalr01]

People are blaming Misbah for the defeats against Sri Lanka and Australia. I am talking about the Mickey’s side whom we consider the best T20 side in the world. They would have been embarrassed by India just like they were embarrassed in the Asia Cup.

You are right about Kohli. Such a match-loser. I don’t understand why India don’t drop him from the side.

Pakistan were helped by the fact that the top sides didn't play their top teams, but under Mickey we would never have been Whitewashed by Sri Lanka. We probably would've still lost to Australia.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

England is 1/2, our winning streak started in 2016 when we beat England.

That's true. Wasn't included because I started my data collection from Oct. 2016 onwards. Wanted to do it after the 7th rankings release the previous month. So the England game and the first WI series wasn't included. Wanted to add this disclaimer on after but couldn't edit the post by then haha.

 

[Danyaalr01]

That's true. Wasn't included because I started my data collection from Oct. 2016 onwards. Wanted to do it after the 7th rankings release the previous month. So the England game and the first WI series wasn't included. Wanted to add this disclaimer on after but couldn't edit the post by then haha.

Oh, ok. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Hasan123]

Pakistan are not the number 1 T20 team in the world. It was a good run but deep down people know we are not the number 1 team.

Blaming a captain and coach for going as to why we are struggling now is just running away from the fact we are not good enough.

 

[MRSN]

For anyone out of reality needs to look at our performance in the Asia cup. We looked hopeless against even the likes of Bangladesh and Afghanistan. still remember Malik's incredible knock to save us from getting knocked out by Afghanistan. India didn't even send their full strength side yet they beat us twice. Our t20 rankings was a big myth.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

Pakistan are not the number 1 T20 team in the world. It was a good run but deep down people know we are not the number 1 team.

Blaming a captain and coach for going as to why we are struggling now is just running away from the fact we are not good enough.

I think the consensus definitely is that Pakistan were not unbeatable even at No. 1. The point is they were a GOOD T20 team. Won often at home, and managed to take a few away games. Not the best, but good. And now for several reasons--not just the coaching changes--they're not even that.

 

[MRSN]

Two argument I keep saying in the threads is that Pakistan got to the top of the T20i rankings by beating minnows AND/OR by beating lower-strength sides of top teams.

I was genuinely curious to see if this was true on both fronts so I did a bit digging. Here's what I found.

Cumulatively, Pakistan has been the No. 1 for 710 days as on Nov. 8, 2019. This is the second highest record, first being Sri Lanka who have been No. 1 for a cumulative 1064 days.

On Sept. 10, 2016, Pakistan were the 7th ranked T20i team in the world. So I have calculated the matches they played since then to date. Now let's turn to the arguments themselves.

1. The "Minnow-Bashing" Argument:​

Total Matches Played: 39
Won: 26
Lost: 12
N/R: 1

Wins (out of 26) vs. Individual Teams:

1. West Indies: 6 wins (23% of total wins)
2a. Australia: 5 wins (19% of total wins)
2b. New Zealand: 5 wins (19% of total wins)
3. Sri Lanka: 3 wins (11% of total wins)
4a. Scotland: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
4b. Zimbabwe: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
4c. World XI: 2 wins (8% of total wins)
5. South Africa: 1 win (4% of total wins)

If we are to say "minnow" in the strictest sense of the word, then the only minnows on this list could be Scotland and Zimbabwe. That still means Pakistan won 84% of its games against higher-ranked teams of the top-10.

If we are to further exclude SL, that still leaves 75% wins against quality sides. I am not excluding WI because 3/6 wins against them included the likes of Pollard, Narine, Lewis and Brathwaite who would hardly qualify as half-strength. The next 3 wins in Karachi were against a lower-strength WI. Leaving 62% of wins against better sides.

2. The "Strength of the Side" argument:
​

The other argument can be made about the strengths of these sides. So I've listed the squads of each of the wins against WI, AUS, NZ, World XI and South Africa. You can judge the strength of these sides for yourself.

WI: E. Lewis, C. Walton, M. Samuels, L. Simmons, K. Pollard, S. Narine, R. Powell, C. Brathwaite, J. Holder, S. Badree, K. Williams, J. Mohammed, A. Fletcher, D. Ramdin, K. Paul, R. Emrit, V. Permaul, O. Smith, A. McCarthy.

AUS: D. Short, A. Finch, T. Head, G. Maxwell, C. Lynn, N. Maddinson, M. Stoinis, A. Carey, A. Agar, A.J. Tye, J. Richardson, B. Stanlake, J. Wildermuth, B. McDermott, N. Coulter-Nile, A. Zampa, M. Marsh, N. Lyon.

NZ: M. Guptill, C. Munro, G. Philiips, K. Williamson, T. Bruce, R. Taylor, A. Kitchen, C. de Grandhomme, M. Santner, T. Southee, I. Sodhi, S. Rance, T. Blundell, T. Boult, M. Chapman, T. Seifert, L. Ferguson, C. Anderson, A. Milne, A. Patel.

World XI: T. Iqbal, H. Amla, T. Paine, F. du Plessis, D. Miller, G. Elliot, T. Perrara, D. Sammy, B. Cutting, M. Morkel, I. Tahir, G. Bailey, S. Badree, P. Collingwood.

SA: R. Hendricks, J. Malan, van der Dussen, H. Klaasen, D. Miller, A. Phehlukwayo, C. Morris, B. Hendricks, C. Dala, L. Simpala, T. Shamsi.

----

During this time Pakistan did not play India. And played one match against England which they lost.

So what do you think? Was Pakistan's rise to the top of T20i cricket due to playing minnows or low-strength sides?

You have listed WI squad but none of top WI player came to participate in 3 matches series played in Pakistan due to security reasons.

You have mentioned world XI which I don't think should be taken seriously as most players were just playing for fun and to came to send world message that cricket is safe in Pakistan.

SLns were very very weak those days.

We only played Eng in two games. One we won because of a brilliant spell by Imad back in 2016. Thr other game we lost to a strong Eng side.

Aussies lost 3-0 on UAE pitches and their side didn't have Warner, Smith and starc.

We only played 2 games against India and they beat us twice despite lacking some pf their star players.

Asia cup was the real test of our team as a T20 giant and we know how it ended.

Pak were a good T20 side on UAE pitches with in form Imad, Shadab, hasan and Fakher but things are changing. Imad, Shadab and Fakher not the same player and other teams have improved.

It's time to uplift our performance rather than living on mythical characters like Sarfraz great captain, mickey great coach.

 

[Boiz Played Well]

You have listed WI squad but none of top WI player came to participate in 3 matches series played in Pakistan due to security reasons.

You have mentioned world XI which I don't think should be taken seriously as most players were just playing for fun and to came to send world message that cricket is safe in Pakistan.

SLns were very very weak those days.

We only played Eng in two games. One we won because of a brilliant spell by Imad back in 2016. Thr other game we lost to a strong Eng side.

Aussies lost 3-0 on UAE pitches and their side didn't have Warner, Smith and starc.

We only played 2 games against India and they beat us twice despite lacking some pf their star players.

Asia cup was the real test of our team as a T20 giant and we know how it ended.

Pak were a good T20 side on UAE pitches with in form Imad, Shadab, hasan and Fakher but things are changing. Imad, Shadab and Fakher not the same player and other teams have improved.

It's time to uplift our performance rather than living on mythical characters like Sarfraz great captain, mickey great coach.

Hey bro! I mentioned in the post that the first 3 WI matches had their strong players and the Karachi team did not. I also subtracted those three games from the serious teams %.

I didn't mention World XI randomly, they were part of the period I calculated (Oct. 2016 to present) and the matches counted as international games. I also didn't defend the strength of those sides, they were what they were.

I fully agree that several key players have lost form. Faheem too was an important player at one point. Other teams are definitely getting going at the right time. WI full-squad will be dangerous. England showed what they could do yesterday even without Buttler, Stokes, Roy or Moeen Ali. And of course AUS and India.

 

[barah_admi]

I think Pakistan deserved No.1 ranking in T20 because they were consistent irrespective of quality of opposition. But the problem was

1 ) Top teams didn't take T20 cricket seriously after T20 WC 2016. Most of the top team focus was on tests and ODI hence they hardly played full strength and general impression was win/lose doesn't matter and T20 bilaterals were used to test new players only.

2) Playing in slow pitches of UAE. This negated the power games of Windies, NZ and Australia and Pakistan perfected a template of opening up with Imad and be was difficult to hit in the power play on low slow pitches and the average score hovers around 140 to 150 which Pakistan could able to chose with cautious approach.

3) Not enough cricket in SENA pitches in true wickets. Most of the winning streak was made on dead low pitches of UAE, WI etc.

Also No.1 team don't lose 8 out of 9 matches...it's just dilute the whole No.1 legacy and creates the doubt on " how can this team be No.1 for so long "

We will take all your points one by one.

First point, you claim top teams played weaker sides, can you explain, looking at the list of players in the OP, which teams played weaker sides?

 

[MenInG]

This is a great debate but unfortunately Pakistan's latest performances are not making a compelling argument for their current position.

 

[topspin]

Pakistan were helped by the fact that the top sides didn't play their top teams, but under Mickey we would never have been Whitewashed by Sri Lanka. We probably would've still lost to Australia.

Exactly this.

I can't imagine Mickey disturbing the balance of the batting order with the inclusions of Umar Akmal and Shehzad,

I backed Umar until the world cup, but I've realised that ship sailed a long time ago.

I don't think Pakistan still would have lost in Australia but it would have been more competitive.

After Pakistan's performance against the Aussies during the last tour, it couldn't be any more apparent that Misbah is the worst captain to have led an international side in Australia.

We will be lucky to survive till day 5 (after four full days) in either of the two upcoming tests.

 

[King Khan]

Lets not forget that 4 players who contributed in those wins are not playing. ie, Hasan Ali, Faheem Ashraf, Shoaib Malik and Mohammed Hafeez.

That's not to say we should be selecting them now, as all four of them are struggling with form. But, the problem with Mickey was he wasn't able to find the replacements, and therefore Misbah is struggling with that challenge as the ones hes picked (other than Ifti) haven't performed so far.

Also to make matters worse, players like Shadab and Fakhar have also regressed (Fakhar more than Shadab - who is still work in progress) therefore thought has to be given how we can provide for them competition and backup so that we are not always reliant on these two.

A special shout out to Sarfaraz, as regardless of his performances in Tests, his captaincy is a good reason why we did well, as he was key to the managing of Shadab, Imad and Hafeez (when available) in the middle overs where the choke and eventual death overs are important to restricting the target.
But his batting never was a liability until now. We could not have a specialist captain at this level and therefore it was the right move to replace him, but if he can return with the bat, he will be a good player to help guide Babar in future games.

 

[King_Kohli]

Good Analysis

 

[Boiz Played Well]

Lets not forget that 4 players who contributed in those wins are not playing. ie, Hasan Ali, Faheem Ashraf, Shoaib Malik and Mohammed Hafeez.

That's not to say we should be selecting them now, as all four of them are struggling with form. But, the problem with Mickey was he wasn't able to find the replacements, and therefore Misbah is struggling with that challenge as the ones hes picked (other than Ifti) haven't performed so far.

Also to make matters worse, players like Shadab and Fakhar have also regressed (Fakhar more than Shadab - who is still work in progress) therefore thought has to be given how we can provide for them competition and backup so that we are not always reliant on these two.

A special shout out to Sarfaraz, as regardless of his performances in Tests, his captaincy is a good reason why we did well, as he was key to the managing of Shadab, Imad and Hafeez (when available) in the middle overs where the choke and eventual death overs are important to restricting the target.
But his batting never was a liability until now. We could not have a specialist captain at this level and therefore it was the right move to replace him, but if he can return with the bat, he will be a good player to help guide Babar in future games.

This is a fair analysis. I'm not saying if all 4-5 players who are now out of the team, and the ones still there who have lost form (like Shadab) were all still there playing good cricket, Pakistan would've been an absolute champion unbeatable side. I would venture though that Pakistan would've been MUCH more competitive and fairly strong as a unit if that was the case.

 

[The_Odd_One]

There is no middle ground for Pakistani posters. The team has to be either a world beater or completely worthless.

Pakistan won all their series fair and square and deserved the #1 ranking. ICC did not bend any laws to award the ranking to Pakistan neither were other boards forced to play their under-strength teams.

Was Pakistan the best T-20 team in the world? Definitely not

Was Pakistan's #1 ranking justified? Absolutely

I also do not understand the argument that Pakistan takes T-20s too seriously. As a professional you should take every game seriously in every format against every opponent. Moreover, 90% of the team has debuted in the last 2-3 years. They already play far less cricket than the Big-3, why would you give them breaks?

 

[Sean143]

T20I performance of Pakistani batters this year:
Babar Azam: 374 runs an average of 41.55 and a Sr of 137
Others: 955 runs at an average of 13.84 and a Sr of 108.8

 

[Boiz Played Well]

T20I performance of Pakistani batters this year:
Babar Azam: 374 runs an average of 41.55 and a Sr of 137
Others: 955 runs at an average of 13.84 and a Sr of 108.8

Tbh that's pretty funny. This year has been like playing one batsman and 10 specialist fielders who don't field all that well.

 

[barah_admi]

There is no middle ground for Pakistani posters. The team has to be either a world beater or completely worthless.

Pakistan won all their series fair and square and deserved the #1 ranking. ICC did not bend any laws to award the ranking to Pakistan neither were other boards forced to play their under-strength teams.

Was Pakistan the best T-20 team in the world? Definitely not

Was Pakistan's #1 ranking justified? Absolutely

I also do not understand the argument that Pakistan takes T-20s too seriously. As a professional you should take every game seriously in every format against every opponent. Moreover, 90% of the team has debuted in the last 2-3 years. They already play far less cricket than the Big-3, why would you give them breaks?

How can you say Pakistan were "definitely" not the best team?

I, like you, do not always believe in the rankings system and in all honesty, no one should as it is deeply flawed and not entirely transparent. India is ranked no. 1 in tests yet barely wins away tests against teams like England, SA and Aus (just won for the first time)....the previous time they were ranked one, they were thrashed in all three of those locations, while SA and England were superior all condition teams.

However, India had a definite argument alongside those other two sides and we could not definitely discount them.

So Pakistan being number at that particular point, in T20 cricket, was a definite argument. The fact that they beat just about every team (willing to play them) shows that they were the best at what they did. Could there be an argument that the Windies was close?

The point being, Pakistan were definitely ranked number one, they were definitely the most consistent, they definitely had some of the best T20 players, some of the best debutants but there may or may not be arguments from elsewhere. There is nothing definite about it.