Do Our Former Cricketers Understand Modern Cricket?

[unemployedgm]

I am of the opinion that along with Babar Azam, Hussain Talat is an equally bright prospect who should be playing in all three formats. At the moment, he's not participating in any apart from the odd T20.

Many months ago I selected Hussain Talat for the Saint Lucia Stars. Before selecting him, I discussed Talat with Mickey Arthur. Arthur gave me the greenlight saying that Talat wasn't in their ODI or Test Plans making him available for the CPL.

Talat never received an NOC, but he also hasn't become a fixture in the Pakistani Team. Apart from not selecting Talat, we see Pakistan Cricket persist with Malik, Hafeez, and others. We see Pakistan Cricket play a style of cricket the antithesis of the modern trend. We don't recognize our strengths and/or our weaknesses.

That begs the question. Do our former cricketers understand modern cricket? Are they capable of Evaluating Talent? Are they capable of building a team? Are they capable of implementing a progressive philosophy? In the last many years we've seen prominent Cricketers such as Inzamam ul Haq, Mushtaq Ahmed, Waqar Younis, Javed Miandad, Wasim Akram, Aqib Javed, Rashid Latif, Misbah ul Haq, and others around Pakistan Cricket.

Do you trust these individuals to spawn a golden generation of Pakistani Cricketers?

 

[Chokli]

agree completely.

the results are there for everyone to see, the champions trophy was one helluva fluke

 

[Savak]

The whole process is chichri. Both Inzi and Mickey Arthur understand modern cricket and i have to say it is Mickey Arthur is very stubborn and has his likes and dislikes. Inzi has on record said he prefers batsmen with good strike rates, Inzi has given chances to plenty of younger players, Inzi has selected youngsters in the squad but it is Mickey Arthur and the team management who decided not to select those players.

Inzi sent Umar Akmal to the CT but Mickey Arthur made the call to send him back. Inzi gave spinners to Mickey Arthur but it was Mickey Arthur who chose not to play spinners in the UAE. It is Mickey Arthur who has double standards on fitness where he adopts one rule for one and another rule for someone else.

Inzi flew over to the UAE to force Mickey Arthur and the team management to play Junaid Khan over the struggling Amir and the next thing you know, Junaid picked up 4 wickets in the very next game.

Inzi selected Abid Ali and Saad Ali in the squad, it was Mickey Arthur's decision to not play them.

Inzi has cooperated with Mickey Arthur and has given him the players he wanted, that is for sure. Inzi comes from the school of thought that the selectors have to listen to the captain and coach and back their wishes as he desired and practiced the same thing himself as captain.

 

[Abdullah]

If you have that kind of access to Mickey can u ask him what the hell is with selecting 5 to 6 quicks for a UAE tour and only one proper spinner.
Also what he sees in Shah as an odi cricketer.
And why Malik and Harris are not taking their bowling seriously when it's clear you need to have 6 proper bowling options for us to succeed with our bowling variety
Thanks

 

[Bilal7]

The average Pakpassion poster's logic:

My favourite player(s) is (are) not being played, therefore the selector/coach/captain clearly do not understand cricket and should be sacked.

Get over yourself, someone who has played international cricket or coached international cricketers understands cricket far better than you do. Apart from a couple of special cases, there is a good reason why a specific player did not play for the national team at any point in time. Some of these reasons are:

- There are better players than him.
- The player is out of form.
- The player is not that good.
- The player does not fit the team's strategic requirements.
- The player is either too old or too young.
- The player does not have the class to play for the PCT.

The whole process is chichri. Both Inzi and Mickey Arthur understand modern cricket and i have to say it is Mickey Arthur is very stubborn and has his likes and dislikes. Inzi has on record said he prefers batsmen with good strike rates, Inzi has given chances to plenty of younger players, Inzi has selected youngsters in the squad but it is Mickey Arthur and the team management who decided not to select those players.

Inzi sent Umar Akmal to the CT but Mickey Arthur made the call to send him back. Inzi gave spinners to Mickey Arthur but it was Mickey Arthur who chose not to play spinners in the UAE. It is Mickey Arthur who has double standards on fitness where he adopts one rule for one and another rule for someone else.

Inzi flew over to the UAE to force Mickey Arthur and the team management to play Junaid Khan over the struggling Amir and the next thing you know, Junaid picked up 4 wickets in the very next game.

Inzi selected Abid Ali and Saad Ali in the squad, it was Mickey Arthur's decision to not play them.

Inzi has cooperated with Mickey Arthur and has given him the players he wanted, that is for sure. Inzi comes from the school of thought that the selectors have to listen to the captain and coach and back their wishes as he desired and practiced the same thing himself as captain.

Very good post. Inzamam's squad selections have been very good, generally speaking. It is Mickey Arthur and the rest of the team management who end up selecting the wrong players and/or playing them out of position. If the TM is going to bat Talat down at #7, that is not the selector's problem and Inzamam knows that everyone has to be on the same page and he can't fly over and tell Mickey how it is during every tour. That would only lead to groupings and politics that Inzamam kept at bay during his time as captain.

 

[The Viper]

Inzi picked Yasir Shah in LOI. Look not saying that Inzi is completely woeful but his not excepted from criticism like some of you are portraying.

 

[world cup captain]

The whole process is chichri. Both Inzi and Mickey Arthur understand modern cricket and i have to say it is Mickey Arthur is very stubborn and has his likes and dislikes. Inzi has on record said he prefers batsmen with good strike rates, Inzi has given chances to plenty of younger players, Inzi has selected youngsters in the squad but it is Mickey Arthur and the team management who decided not to select those players.

Inzi sent Umar Akmal to the CT but Mickey Arthur made the call to send him back. Inzi gave spinners to Mickey Arthur but it was Mickey Arthur who chose not to play spinners in the UAE. It is Mickey Arthur who has double standards on fitness where he adopts one rule for one and another rule for someone else.

Inzi flew over to the UAE to force Mickey Arthur and the team management to play Junaid Khan over the struggling Amir and the next thing you know, Junaid picked up 4 wickets in the very next game.

Inzi selected Abid Ali and Saad Ali in the squad, it was Mickey Arthur's decision to not play them.

Inzi has cooperated with Mickey Arthur and has given him the players he wanted, that is for sure. Inzi comes from the school of thought that the selectors have to listen to the captain and coach and back their wishes as he desired and practiced the same thing himself as captain.

Buddy, have you looked at the Pakistan Cup squads? Please don't tell me Inzi is any better than Mickey. Inzi isn't even letting younger players play in Pakistan domestics let alone play for Pakistan. And please don't harp about Akmals being a "younger". He is a tried and tested player thus does not quality for the youngster title. Inzi as a selector hasn't done anything of note to be placed above Mickey ATM.

 

[in_cutter]

What are Yasir & Abbas doing in the LOI side?

 

[Sadozai]

Just forget about the former players, even most of our current players don't understand the modern cricket

 

[unemployedgm]

The average Pakpassion poster's logic:

My favourite player(s) is (are) not being played, therefore the selector/coach/captain clearly do not understand cricket and should be sacked.

Get over yourself, someone who has played international cricket or coached international cricketers understands cricket far better than you do. Apart from a couple of special cases, there is a good reason why a specific player did not play for the national team at any point in time. Some of these reasons are:

- There are better players than him.
- The player is out of form.
- The player is not that good.
- The player does not fit the team's strategic requirements.
- The player is either too old or too young.
- The player does not have the class to play for the PCT.



Very good post. Inzamam's squad selections have been very good, generally speaking. It is Mickey Arthur and the rest of the team management who end up selecting the wrong players and/or playing them out of position. If the TM is going to bat Talat down at #7, that is not the selector's problem and Inzamam knows that everyone has to be on the same page and he can't fly over and tell Mickey how it is during every tour. That would only lead to groupings and politics that Inzamam kept at bay during his time as captain.

I don't have a personal preference for Hussain. My only point is that Hussain is clearly one of the best batsman in Pakistan. In a country devoid of middle order batsman, the fact he isn't part of a plan is troubling.

In terms of access to Mickey, this business is all about self preservation. Mickey will die his way, he won't do so taking another person's advice.

Finally, in modern cricket a 6th bowling option has to be a genuine bowler. Harris Sohail and Shoaib Malik won't cut it.

 

[unemployedgm]

Inzamam like those who preceded him is a poor selector. He is completely off kilter with how he's building this team. If anyone can identify a clear strategy in any format I'm all ears.

Although your point about SRs is correct inzamam hasn't put that into practice. He consistently picks low impact players with low SRs in all formats.