Do Pakistan bother with Bowling Plans in Tests?

[Junaids]

I am really starting to wonder whether Pakistan bother to do video analysis of opposition batsmen (and bowlers batting) in Test cricket.

I first wondered when Chris Woakes was allowed to score 84 not out to lead England to a 3 wicket victory in the First Test at Old Trafford in 2020.

Woakes is a decent batsman with a well-known weakness against short-pitched fast bowling. He came to the crease at 117-5, with England chasing 277 to win. It took 34 overs for him to receive his second bouncer, as Pakistan persisted with Yasir Shah as if it was 2016. In reality, Yasir failed to strike in his next 17 overs, and then took two wickets on the verge of victory.

Now in New Zealand we see the same thing. There is no sign of any individualised plans for each batsman. I don't see the field changing between batsmen and I don't see the line and length changing.

The worry for me is that this is very similar to what happened in Waqar Younis' own bowling career. If you recall the 1992 series, he had no real strategy for how to strike with the newer ball, and each innings consisted of him waiting until a 45 over old ball was scratched and reverse-swinging. Naseem Shah in may ways is like a slower, shorter Waqar, but of course he never gets to bowl with a damaged ball.

The Christchurch wicket for the Second Test was never a 297 wicket - it always looked much more like a 450 track, and it was only the hopelessness of the geriatric Pakistani top order which made 297 look more competitive than it really was.

But it's not a 659-6 declared wicket either. Batsmen like Henry Nicholls and Daryl Mitchell should not be cruising to easy centuries without being challenged.

Bowling plans are a complex affair.

The bowling coach needs to watch videos of each batsman - including the tailenders - and to work out:

1. What line and length is our first choice for each batsman?

2. What field do we set for each batsman?

3. If that doesn't work out, what is Plan B?
(Remember Mohammad Amir bowling wide outside off-stump against Australia at Brisbane in 2016-17 after the Pink Kookaburra lost its hardness? He ended up with 4-97 and 1-37 on a wicket on which Mitchell Starc took 3-63 and 4-119.)
4. What combination of bowlers do you bowl at any one time?
If you think back to Hobart in 1999-2000, Pakistan was bowled out for 222 and Australia reached 191-1. But Wasim Akram worked out that his best bet was fast inswing at one end and spin at the other. For the next 20 overs he rotated Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar at one end with Saqlain Mushtaq at the other end. In those 20.1 overs Pakistan took the last 9 wickets for 55 runs, and Australia was dismissed for 246.

At least Mickey Arthur understood that Pakistan needed a Plan A and a Plan B for each batsman.

Do Pakistan have individualised plans at all any more? I don't see any evidence that they do!

 

[BreadPakoda]

Should have kept more slips for the hard handed Williamson.

 

[ManFan]

You act as if the PCB know what they are doing.

It’s a money-making cow for them; as long as people will watch, who are they to be held accountable for?

 

[Hasan123]

Even if you give our players plans, most of the time they won’t be able to execute them because they won’t have the skill or intelligence. Also Naseem is not a slow and shorter version of Waqar. Stop making these ridiculous comparisons. No one with a brain is falling for your tricks.

 

[Rana]

The plan is...













There is no plan

 

[Buffet]

Should have kept more slips for the hard handed Williamson.

Or find another tall bowler. All problems solved.

 

[hitthestump]

Warner as well. Broad showed the whole world how to bowl to him effectively. Misbah had no clue during that humiliation of a series.

 

[YousafTheBeast]

If you watched the game from the start you’d know the answer.

The commentators picked up how our bowlers had identified a weakness in Tom Blundell’s game, and showed us where our bowlers were pitching the ball. They had a plan, and it worked. Same with Tom Latham.

You just can’t plan against dropping catches. The fielders let the bowlers down.

 

[adzzy786]

We can blame the bowlers all we want but in truth they have had over 15 catches dropped in this game. If we had held our catches the game would have looked very different.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

How many bowling plans did we have when we had the likes of the w's and the a's
Pakistan will never wait for the other team to make a mistake to get their wicket
They just have more cricket skills to do it than depend on any plans

 

[Zaz]

If you never have a plan....the plan cant fail

 

[Titan24]

In the current world you can’t survive without proper plans in any sport and I dont thin Pak team or think tank is sharpest in that department rather pretty ordinary. While ability to execute a plan is one thing but, there have been no plans on show what so ever for sometime. Not starting against Warner from around the wicket in Aus and serving full balls to Woakes without testing him for short balls on which he has problems are just a couple of examples from the vast ocean reflecting the lack of plans.

 

[Rana]

If you never have a plan....the plan cant fail

This is the plan

 

[Yk313]

I am really starting to wonder whether Pakistan bother to do video analysis of opposition batsmen (and bowlers batting) in Test cricket.

I first wondered when Chris Woakes was allowed to score 84 not out to lead England to a 3 wicket victory in the First Test at Old Trafford in 2020.

Woakes is a decent batsman with a well-known weakness against short-pitched fast bowling. He came to the crease at 117-5, with England chasing 277 to win. It took 34 overs for him to receive his second bouncer, as Pakistan persisted with Yasir Shah as if it was 2016. In reality, Yasir failed to strike in his next 17 overs, and then took two wickets on the verge of victory.

Now in New Zealand we see the same thing. There is no sign of any individualised plans for each batsman. I don't see the field changing between batsmen and I don't see the line and length changing.

The worry for me is that this is very similar to what happened in Waqar Younis' own bowling career. If you recall the 1992 series, he had no real strategy for how to strike with the newer ball, and each innings consisted of him waiting until a 45 over old ball was scratched and reverse-swinging. Naseem Shah in may ways is like a slower, shorter Waqar, but of course he never gets to bowl with a damaged ball.

The Christchurch wicket for the Second Test was never a 297 wicket - it always looked much more like a 450 track, and it was only the hopelessness of the geriatric Pakistani top order which made 297 look more competitive than it really was.

But it's not a 659-6 declared wicket either. Batsmen like Henry Nicholls and Daryl Mitchell should not be cruising to easy centuries without being challenged.

Bowling plans are a complex affair.

The bowling coach needs to watch videos of each batsman - including the tailenders - and to work out:

1. What line and length is our first choice for each batsman?

2. What field do we set for each batsman?

3. If that doesn't work out, what is Plan B?
(Remember Mohammad Amir bowling wide outside off-stump against Australia at Brisbane in 2016-17 after the Pink Kookaburra lost its hardness? He ended up with 4-97 and 1-37 on a wicket on which Mitchell Starc took 3-63 and 4-119.)
4. What combination of bowlers do you bowl at any one time?
If you think back to Hobart in 1999-2000, Pakistan was bowled out for 222 and Australia reached 191-1. But Wasim Akram worked out that his best bet was fast inswing at one end and spin at the other. For the next 20 overs he rotated Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar at one end with Saqlain Mushtaq at the other end. In those 20.1 overs Pakistan took the last 9 wickets for 55 runs, and Australia was dismissed for 246.

At least Mickey Arthur understood that Pakistan needed a Plan A and a Plan B for each batsman.

Do Pakistan have individualised plans at all any more? I don't see any evidence that they do!

Why should they? Teams which are lacking in talent normally cover these facile aspects such as bowling plans.

PAK are above and beyond these. In any case, I am reasonably confident that if we ask the management what they would do differently if they play against AUS, ENG or NZD now they will not mention:

- going over the wicket to Warner
- suffocating Smith and Marnus on the leg side
- Woakes & short deliveries

The intellectual capacity in regards to cricketing acumen is fairly limited in PAK. You will still find people recommending selections of Afridi, Imran Nazir and so on, and asking why Sohail Tanvir is not playing Test matches.

The international stage is just a reflection of our true selves.

 

[Savak]

I remember when Waqar was once asked in an interview whether Pakistani players are averse to planning, scientific video analysis of their own games and the opposition players and WY responded that going to overboard with this stuff leads to confusion, over thinking and stifles with the natural flair, talent of the players

 

[I think therfore I am]

I remember when Waqar was once asked in an interview whether Pakistani players are averse to planning, scientific video analysis of their own games and the opposition players and WY responded that going to overboard with this stuff leads to confusion, over thinking and stifles with the natural flair, talent of the players

The question is, do they have brain that functions.

 

[hoshiarpurexpress]

The plan should be to find a 7 feet bowler who hits the hard hands of Williamson

 

[Yk313]

Why should they? Teams which are lacking in talent normally cover these facile aspects such as bowling plans.

PAK are above and beyond these. In any case, I am reasonably confident that if we ask the management what they would do differently if they play against AUS, ENG or NZD now they will not mention:

- going around the wicket to Warner
- suffocating Smith and Marnus on the leg side
- Woakes & short deliveries

The intellectual capacity in regards to cricketing acumen is fairly limited in PAK. You will still find people recommending selections of Afridi, Imran Nazir and so on, and asking why Sohail Tanvir is not playing Test matches.

The international stage is just a reflection of our true selves.

Fixed

 

[Sir Alex]

Plans are only good on paper if the people who have to execute them are duds.

Look at Naseem for example, he was just trying to breach the 140 kph barrier every single time he ran up to bowl, doesn't matter where the ball goes. There was zero planning and he got absolutely hammered for that.

Zohar was reduced to bowling 1 meter outside leg stump but given his complete lack of any guile was easily dealt with reverse sweeps by the batsmen.

Abbas was happy to stick to ODI run saver line and length and not at all trying to attack the batsmen. He could have been effective had Pak had decent bowlers at the other end attacking the batsmen relentlessly.

Afridi tried his best but was confused between whether to be aggressive or be the work horse. In the end he was bowling harmless bouncers above the heads of the batsmen or far outside off stump.

 

[MMHS]

Nice post - it is required for such days when talunt isn’t doing much, tonic might do. When there is more crowd in such moral booster thread than the ongoing match thread, one has to praise the effort.

I’m sure it’ll sell well in PP.....

 

[Suleiman]

Average IQ of Pakistan cricketers now is much lower than the players of the 90s or prior. IQ of 90s players was so high that they had multiple streams of income as well..

 

[Energy]

For planning you need to be educated. Or have a rudimentary understanding of how to analyse.

Don't expect this from Pak cricket even in the future. Like I said in another thread a while back, we see the village Lagaan team of the modern era. Not every time Bhuvan or Kachra can come to the rescue.

 

[Savak]

Plans are only good on paper if the people who have to execute them are duds.

Look at Naseem for example, he was just trying to breach the 140 kph barrier every single time he ran up to bowl, doesn't matter where the ball goes. There was zero planning and he got absolutely hammered for that.

Zohar was reduced to bowling 1 meter outside leg stump but given his complete lack of any guile was easily dealt with reverse sweeps by the batsmen.

Abbas was happy to stick to ODI run saver line and length and not at all trying to attack the batsmen. He could have been effective had Pak had decent bowlers at the other end attacking the batsmen relentlessly.

Afridi tried his best but was confused between whether to be aggressive or be the work horse. In the end he was bowling harmless bouncers above the heads of the batsmen or far outside off stump.

The team when bowling had 6 breaks. A good team management is supposed to lift morale and get the boys back on track, get some self belief in. Unfortunately Misbah and Waqar seem devoid of it. They have nothing more to give.

 

[Last Monetarist]

The worry for me is that this is very similar to what happened in Waqar Younis' own bowling career. If you recall the 1992 series, he had no real strategy for how to strike with the newer ball, and each innings consisted of him waiting until a 45 over old ball was scratched and reverse-swinging. Naseem Shah in may ways is like a slower, shorter Waqar, but of course he never gets to bowl with a damaged ball.

Repeating this specious nonsense numerous times doesn't render it true, as [MENTION=79064]MMHS[/MENTION] has countered several times.

 

[MenInG]

What makes us think they are no plans? The execution of plans is the issue.

 

[MMHS]

What makes us think they are no plans? The execution of plans is the issue.

You have to keep the “followers” charmed - 4 pacers theory earned 659/6, without Yasir losing the game for 4/200+..... so, what next?

Have to appreciate the innovative thoughts though ...

 

[UzmanBeast]

I am really starting to wonder whether Pakistan bother to do video analysis of opposition batsmen (and bowlers batting) in Test cricket.

I first wondered when Chris Woakes was allowed to score 84 not out to lead England to a 3 wicket victory in the First Test at Old Trafford in 2020.

Woakes is a decent batsman with a well-known weakness against short-pitched fast bowling. He came to the crease at 117-5, with England chasing 277 to win. It took 34 overs for him to receive his second bouncer, as Pakistan persisted with Yasir Shah as if it was 2016. In reality, Yasir failed to strike in his next 17 overs, and then took two wickets on the verge of victory.

Now in New Zealand we see the same thing. There is no sign of any individualised plans for each batsman. I don't see the field changing between batsmen and I don't see the line and length changing.

The worry for me is that this is very similar to what happened in Waqar Younis' own bowling career. If you recall the 1992 series, he had no real strategy for how to strike with the newer ball, and each innings consisted of him waiting until a 45 over old ball was scratched and reverse-swinging. Naseem Shah in may ways is like a slower, shorter Waqar, but of course he never gets to bowl with a damaged ball.

The Christchurch wicket for the Second Test was never a 297 wicket - it always looked much more like a 450 track, and it was only the hopelessness of the geriatric Pakistani top order which made 297 look more competitive than it really was.

But it's not a 659-6 declared wicket either. Batsmen like Henry Nicholls and Daryl Mitchell should not be cruising to easy centuries without being challenged.

Bowling plans are a complex affair.

The bowling coach needs to watch videos of each batsman - including the tailenders - and to work out:

1. What line and length is our first choice for each batsman?

2. What field do we set for each batsman?

3. If that doesn't work out, what is Plan B?
(Remember Mohammad Amir bowling wide outside off-stump against Australia at Brisbane in 2016-17 after the Pink Kookaburra lost its hardness? He ended up with 4-97 and 1-37 on a wicket on which Mitchell Starc took 3-63 and 4-119.)
4. What combination of bowlers do you bowl at any one time?
If you think back to Hobart in 1999-2000, Pakistan was bowled out for 222 and Australia reached 191-1. But Wasim Akram worked out that his best bet was fast inswing at one end and spin at the other. For the next 20 overs he rotated Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar at one end with Saqlain Mushtaq at the other end. In those 20.1 overs Pakistan took the last 9 wickets for 55 runs, and Australia was dismissed for 246.

At least Mickey Arthur understood that Pakistan needed a Plan A and a Plan B for each batsman.

Do Pakistan have individualised plans at all any more? I don't see any evidence that they do!

When a batsman is on the crease, in the past, bowlers bowled a few overs and figured out where they'd want to test the batsmen.

Now, with technology available, we should look at how batsmen have been dismissed in the past, what lengths they average poorly against, where to bowl, and what sides of the field they are prolific in.

In modern cricket, most big teams look at batsmen in the following way:

1. Does the player in question have any particular weaknesses?
2. Does the player have frequent dismissals of the same manner?
3. What lengths does the player average poorly against?
4. What line should we look to bowl?
5. What bowling combination can we use to bring out the weakness?
6. What is our backup plan?
7. Are there any particular field arrangements we should make?
8. What to do when plans do not work?

Take the example of Williamson. He's a very good player of pace, but he has some vulnerability against spin. However, the challenge was that spin is not supported in New Zealand, so it's mostly out of question to bowl spin. Now, against pace, does he have any particular weaknesses? Not many, but like all batsmen, he is subject to pressure early in his innings. That means that our fielders should be vigilant and keep him on strike. What is one of his biggest strengths? He plays the ball with soft hands, and leaves on length. Should bowlers bowl on the stumps? Bowlers should look to take the ball away and then bring the ball back onto the stumps with great precision, or work the opposite way with the pressure built by the fielders. Ideal bowling combination would have been Shaheen + Abbas with the new ball, but the lack of pressure created by the fielders allowed Williamson to rotate strike and take time to analyze the pitch. Bring fielders close to the off side if you are bowling there, and bring a short-catcher nearby. Leave a hole for the flick on the leg side, and when bowling on the pads, try to get him to flick the ball unnecessarily and potentially expose his stumps and his pads for the LBW.

That's just an example, but one thing what I have failed to see Pakistan do is use the fielding bluff.

Sarfaraz used to do it quite often. You leave a gap where a player has an obvious strength to tempt him to play a ball in that area which shouldn't be played there.

Nevertheless, your analysis is correct.

 

[MMHS]

When a batsman is on the crease, in the past, bowlers bowled a few overs and figured out where they'd want to test the batsmen.

Now, with technology available, we should look at how batsmen have been dismissed in the past, what lengths they average poorly against, where to bowl, and what sides of the field they are prolific in.

In modern cricket, most big teams look at batsmen in the following way:

1. Does the player in question have any particular weaknesses?
2. Does the player have frequent dismissals of the same manner?
3. What lengths does the player average poorly against?
4. What line should we look to bowl?
5. What bowling combination can we use to bring out the weakness?
6. What is our backup plan?
7. Are there any particular field arrangements we should make?
8. What to do when plans do not work?

Take the example of Williamson. He's a very good player of pace, but he has some vulnerability against spin. However, the challenge was that spin is not supported in New Zealand, so it's mostly out of question to bowl spin. Now, against pace, does he have any particular weaknesses? Not many, but like all batsmen, he is subject to pressure early in his innings. That means that our fielders should be vigilant and keep him on strike. What is one of his biggest strengths? He plays the ball with soft hands, and leaves on length. Should bowlers bowl on the stumps? Bowlers should look to take the ball away and then bring the ball back onto the stumps with great precision, or work the opposite way with the pressure built by the fielders. Ideal bowling combination would have been Shaheen + Abbas with the new ball, but the lack of pressure created by the fielders allowed Williamson to rotate strike and take time to analyze the pitch. Bring fielders close to the off side if you are bowling there, and bring a short-catcher nearby. Leave a hole for the flick on the leg side, and when bowling on the pads, try to get him to flick the ball unnecessarily and potentially expose his stumps and his pads for the LBW.

That's just an example, but one thing what I have failed to see Pakistan do is use the fielding bluff.

Sarfaraz used to do it quite often. You leave a gap where a player has an obvious strength to tempt him to play a ball in that area which shouldn't be played there.

Nevertheless, your analysis is correct.

Why you are thinking that there was no analysis done? These are basic kindergarten level intellectuality, which is very good for charming blogs - even club teams these days do more in-depth analysis than these. WY has played 15 years for PAK, Misbah as well and they have been PAK Captain multiple times under professional coaches. On top of that WY has played in Counties for a decade - I’m sure he knows lot more about “technical aspects & tactics” of fast bowling than pony analysts like is here in PP.

Do you really think that these intellectuals here in pp, if given chance will fix PAK bowling with their “knowledge” or suddenly Naseem Shah will start to take 20 wickets in three Tests?

Get over this myth of talent and superiority complex for PAK’s bowling - the earlier the better. These sort of basic “gyaan” can be purchased in bulk rate.

The theme of these gyaan in one big myth - Pakistan may talent bahoot Hai.... only the incompetence of coach is not allowing Shaheen Shah becoming Wasim Akram and Naseem Shah to Malcolm Marshall. And you guys are still endorsing that myth.

I can bet my Canadian house (& it’s quite expensive one, trust me) that lot, lot, lot more planning and tactical discussions took place in PAK camp before every game than these simpleton PP charmer, and they must have executed many as well - but the opponents (here NZ) have done their home work as well and they executed their plan, strategy, tactics ... as well - just that they are better than PAK, so could counter the threats better.

 

[Savak]

What makes us think they are no plans? The execution of plans is the issue.

I think the proof is out there i.e. bowlers not attacking David Warner from around the wicket immediately, no bouncers to Woakes early in the innings, defensive cricket and captaincy, poor bowling changes and selections

 

[Deewana Mastana]

Those who actually think they make any plans against their opposition must be kidding themselves. Pakistan is a team that doesn't do anything about their opposition and let's them to just dicate the game.

To make plans is one thing but to execute you need to have a clear mind and some common sense which isn't found in most of them.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Why you are thinking that there was no analysis done? These are basic kindergarten level intellectuality, which is very good for charming blogs - even club teams these days do more in-depth analysis than these. WY has played 15 years for PAK, Misbah as well and they have been PAK Captain multiple times under professional coaches. On top of that WY has played in Counties for a decade - I’m sure he knows lot more about “technical aspects & tactics” of fast bowling than pony analysts like is here in PP.

Do you really think that these intellectuals here in pp, if given chance will fix PAK bowling with their “knowledge” or suddenly Naseem Shah will start to take 20 wickets in three Tests?

Get over this myth of talent and superiority complex for PAK’s bowling - the earlier the better. These sort of basic “gyaan” can be purchased in bulk rate.

The theme of these gyaan in one big myth - Pakistan may talent bahoot Hai.... only the incompetence of coach is not allowing Shaheen Shah becoming Wasim Akram and Naseem Shah to Malcolm Marshall. And you guys are still endorsing that myth.

I can bet my Canadian house (& it’s quite expensive one, trust me) that lot, lot, lot more planning and tactical discussions took place in PAK camp before every game than these simpleton PP charmer, and they must have executed many as well - but the opponents (here NZ) have done their home work as well and they executed their plan, strategy, tactics ... as well - just that they are better than PAK, so could counter the threats better.

There is potential in the bowling, but as far as natural talent goes, that is missing as well.

The bowling plans and the use of technology is hardly seen in the performances.

Chris Woakes was never tested with the short ball, which is something statistics will tell you.

Tom Blundell was never tested on the front foot, he's a predominantly back foot player.

I never said that our bowling is superior and that our bowlers are world beaters and that WY and other management is holding them back, that is not the case. I simply stated that I find it highly unlikely that the Pakistan team creates bowling plans and uses statistics to back those plans. How else would you explain not bowling short to Woakes? Was it a brain fade? Did all the bowlers just forget about what they discussed in the plans?

PP is just here for us to convey our thoughts, and that's what a lot of us are doing. I do not believe in the superiority complex of our bowling, it's garbage. Look at all the other posts I've made criticizing our bowling attack.

You are right, that there might have been discussions, but the blame either falls on the players or on the management, and right now, it's pretty even. Players are not executing plans properly (Shaheen bowling too far wide with the new ball) and the management is not helping with putting increased pressure on the youngsters (sending Zafar and Naseem to a conference when they performed poorly). Moreover, I haven't seen any improvements in Shan Masood, so if your point stands, is he just trying to give his wicket? No change in technique, no change in stance, it is either him or our management that is delusional thinking that he will hit another 150, instead we got a hat trick of ducks.

WY has not improved our fast bowlers, and you can look at our videos in Sri Lanka tests and now, it's just the same. No reverse swing, no well-directed bouncers, nothing has changed.

Misbah has no coaching experience, so I have no idea why you bring his "captaincy experience" into the conversation, when the focus is on his inability to coach the team.

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

The plan should be to find a 7 feet bowler who hits the hard hands of Williamson

Why not 8 feet

 

[Savak]

WY does not have the capacity to devise workable plans against the opposition players especially world class players. Look at the approach the Indians have used in Australia by targeting the stumps of the Australians and packing the leg side field. The Australian batsmen have no choice but to play, block every delivery and to be careful not to flick anything carelessly because the Indians have their field placings spot on on the leg side. End result is that the Australian batsmen are shoveling which increases the chances of an lbw, the Indian pacers pitch one surprise ball outside the offstump up and the Australian batsman desperate to break the shackles goes to drive it and risks edging it to the keeper or slips. Similarly the Indian pacer will use an unexpected bouncer as a surprise and the Australian batsman desperate to break the shackles will go for the hook shot forgetting about the deep square leg fielder and therefore he risks getting caught via top edge at deep square leg or by the keeper. Most teams fall for the usual tactic of just on off stump or just outside as the Pakistani bowlers have been doing under Waqars bowling coaching in the tour of England and now NZ but the Indian team has totally done something out of the box and caught the Australian team by surprise.

Waqar, as legendary a bowler as he was, relied purely on his natural talent and later his experience but he was never a gifted strategic, he at best has a very elementary, predictable understanding of the game which the opposition can predict before hand. When your head coach who is a legend lacks the capacity to come up with workable plans against opposition captains, can you really blame our inexperienced bowlers on being clueless on what to do against quality opposition and world class players like Kane Williamson. That WY bowling coaching video on the PCB website proves that apart from the shabaash, we'll bowled, WY doesn't really have much more of value to offer to our pacers

Contrast this to Bharat Arun who was not a world class player but he has improved each and every Indian pacer at his disposal and also has proven the ability he can identify genuine weaknesses in the opposition players including world class players and can give a proper game plan, strategy to the Indian bowling attack who can then follow up and execute them.

 

[MMHS]

There is potential in the bowling, but as far as natural talent goes, that is missing as well.

The bowling plans and the use of technology is hardly seen in the performances.

Chris Woakes was never tested with the short ball, which is something statistics will tell you.

Tom Blundell was never tested on the front foot, he's a predominantly back foot player.

I never said that our bowling is superior and that our bowlers are world beaters and that WY and other management is holding them back, that is not the case. I simply stated that I find it highly unlikely that the Pakistan team creates bowling plans and uses statistics to back those plans. How else would you explain not bowling short to Woakes? Was it a brain fade? Did all the bowlers just forget about what they discussed in the plans?

PP is just here for us to convey our thoughts, and that's what a lot of us are doing. I do not believe in the superiority complex of our bowling, it's garbage. Look at all the other posts I've made criticizing our bowling attack.

You are right, that there might have been discussions, but the blame either falls on the players or on the management, and right now, it's pretty even. Players are not executing plans properly (Shaheen bowling too far wide with the new ball) and the management is not helping with putting increased pressure on the youngsters (sending Zafar and Naseem to a conference when they performed poorly). Moreover, I haven't seen any improvements in Shan Masood, so if your point stands, is he just trying to give his wicket? No change in technique, no change in stance, it is either him or our management that is delusional thinking that he will hit another 150, instead we got a hat trick of ducks.

WY has not improved our fast bowlers, and you can look at our videos in Sri Lanka tests and now, it's just the same. No reverse swing, no well-directed bouncers, nothing has changed.

Misbah has no coaching experience, so I have no idea why you bring his "captaincy experience" into the conversation, when the focus is on his inability to coach the team.

I was watching NZ batting - this is how Bundle was out:

Faheem to Blundell, OUT
Huuuuuuge lbw shout but umpire Gaffaney is unmoved and so Pakistan go for the review. Lovely follow up delivery - full, but not drivable, which is just the worst for a batsman like Blundell who hates coming forward. And even though he's batting outside his crease, and he tries so hard to take lbw out of play by pushing his front foot across, the inward movement that Ashraf generates is so perfect that it pins him in line with the stumps and gets confirmation from ball-tracking it would then go on to crash into them. Beautiful stuff from the Pakistan allrounder.
TA Blundell lbw b Faheem Ashraf 16 (94m 54b 3x4 0x6) SR: 29.63
—————————————————-///
And, I have seen Woakes batting as well in that innings. When he came to bat, ENG were 117/5 or so ... and got some absolute rubbish to start with. In that innings, one ball that hit some foot mark and availed Shaheen a wicket - rest he was even than Naseem. If you are loose cannon in Test cricket, batsmen won’t give you free wickets.

Now, when Woakes came to bat, check CI commentary - Shaheen didn’t get bowling to him much (Buttler shaded Woakes) bowled him 2-3 short staffs and at least twice he was pulled. After that, Naseem came in few overs and tried short staff - couple went for boundary. That Test, in fourth innings ball was hitting cracks and moving prodigiously - hitting length was key on such wickets to new ball but PAK pacers didn’t put it on right spot, it’s easy to be wise after the event.

I’ll suggest you one thing - don’t go by the script of OP, he doesn’t watch games, rather writes his script after the game from scorecard, fitting logic to the agenda - I have caught him in past for describing fantasy that he apparently was watching live ....

There is definitely bowling plans, game playbooks - even in club cricket and there is analysis as well. Do you really think for an international team playing Test cricket goes in the middle and start bowling for the fun of it? And the “plans” that OP has described here, even if you tell it to average FC cricketers in Pakistan, they’ll laugh at you for your naivety.

I didn’t read the OP, just scanned through - still one “item” got stuck in the scanner. Did I read the plan B of Wasim Akram with Shoaib, Waquar, Saqline & himself? And, Rizwan/WY (though he wasn’t there)/Misbah missed it with Shaheen, Naseem, Abbas, Gohar & Faheem? ..... I guess, you are intelligent enough to read between lines and see what I have done here.

Free joy ride isn’t good for your mind - remember this, it’ll clutter your good sense.

 

[JibranAnsari]

ofcourse waqar younis always have plans.

One was to bowl bouncers with 5 foot 7 inch bowler.

bowl as less pitched up deliveries as possible.

 

[KyoOne]

They make no plans. Commentators were saying that H Nicolas plays square of the wicket, and likes the ball short, and yet bowlers are bowling to his strengths

 

[UzmanBeast]

I was watching NZ batting - this is how Bundle was out:

Faheem to Blundell, OUT
Huuuuuuge lbw shout but umpire Gaffaney is unmoved and so Pakistan go for the review. Lovely follow up delivery - full, but not drivable, which is just the worst for a batsman like Blundell who hates coming forward. And even though he's batting outside his crease, and he tries so hard to take lbw out of play by pushing his front foot across, the inward movement that Ashraf generates is so perfect that it pins him in line with the stumps and gets confirmation from ball-tracking it would then go on to crash into them. Beautiful stuff from the Pakistan allrounder.
TA Blundell lbw b Faheem Ashraf 16 (94m 54b 3x4 0x6) SR: 29.63
—————————————————-///
And, I have seen Woakes batting as well in that innings. When he came to bat, ENG were 117/5 or so ... and got some absolute rubbish to start with. In that innings, one ball that hit some foot mark and availed Shaheen a wicket - rest he was even than Naseem. If you are loose cannon in Test cricket, batsmen won’t give you free wickets.

Now, when Woakes came to bat, check CI commentary - Shaheen didn’t get bowling to him much (Buttler shaded Woakes) bowled him 2-3 short staffs and at least twice he was pulled. After that, Naseem came in few overs and tried short staff - couple went for boundary. That Test, in fourth innings ball was hitting cracks and moving prodigiously - hitting length was key on such wickets to new ball but PAK pacers didn’t put it on right spot, it’s easy to be wise after the event.

I’ll suggest you one thing - don’t go by the script of OP, he doesn’t watch games, rather writes his script after the game from scorecard, fitting logic to the agenda - I have caught him in past for describing fantasy that he apparently was watching live ....

There is definitely bowling plans, game playbooks - even in club cricket and there is analysis as well. Do you really think for an international team playing Test cricket goes in the middle and start bowling for the fun of it? And the “plans” that OP has described here, even if you tell it to average FC cricketers in Pakistan, they’ll laugh at you for your naivety.

I didn’t read the OP, just scanned through - still one “item” got stuck in the scanner. Did I read the plan B of Wasim Akram with Shoaib, Waquar, Saqline & himself? And, Rizwan/WY (though he wasn’t there)/Misbah missed it with Shaheen, Naseem, Abbas, Gohar & Faheem? ..... I guess, you are intelligent enough to read between lines and see what I have done here.

Free joy ride isn’t good for your mind - remember this, it’ll clutter your good sense.

I was watching both matches live and I admit that our bowlers did not execute the right deliveries at the right time, but at times, they looked completely lost. Similar as to what happened to our bowlers against New Zealand, people like Naseem Shah had no clue about what lines and lengths to bowl. That shouldn't happen, because it's a sign of three things: lack of skillset, lack of preparation (both bowling plans and fitness), or it could be an issue of form and lack of luck.

It is easy to dismiss these ideas at the moment, and they become hidden when Pakistan does well, but our bowling has been exposed on flat tracks far too many times in the same ways. Poor fielding efforts, lack of concentration, failure to execute plans early on, and not knowing what to do when the chips are down. The last part is the reason we lose so badly, our bowlers often don't know what to do when the pressure is extreme and the batting side is taking away the game. I know that we on PP talk a lot as if we could fix all the problems, and in most cases, it would be very difficult to fix these problems with such simple steps. However, some problems are inexcusable, such as the poor fielding efforts and squad selections. Those are two problems that can be fixed, because they lie within the players and management themselves. The lack of bowling IQ and the other issues such as bowling plans and execution will take time to develop, but the problems which can be fixed have not been addressed for quite some time now.

On the topic of Woakes, our bowlers bowled absolute filth to get him settled, and there was no pressure created on him once he got a few boundaries away. When Naseem eventually came on to bowl short, he did it with no discipline and a lack of execution proved to be his downfall in that innings. His bowling was scattered to say the least, he'd put it on the right line but at the wrong length and vice versa, and you can't expect much from a 16-year old, but he's a 16-year old who is playing for a professional national cricket team, so performances are expected.

I know that planning and preparation is done by every team, Pakistan has used it a lot and there's a lot of evidence of it. However, from all of these major losses when we have lost by an innings, it seems like we go into a defensive shell once our plans don't work and hope that where we bowl will generate a wicket. There is a lack of improvisation when we are in immense pressure, we have seen this in the T20 series and now the test series against New Zealand. The plans might be there, but the cause of our persistent failure arises from the inability either execute the plans, or improvise when said plans are not working.

It's easy for the blame to fall on players and management, and that's what happens when results are not being produced. A few examples suggest that we don't use data whereas others do. The point is that there is a problem, one which is not so easy to point fingers to. It is a problem within our players but also within our own management. For a lack of a better word, I'll say that the biggest problem our team faces is the inexperience in almost all fronts, batting, bowling, coaching, and more. Our bowlers have played less than 50 matches combined, so it's unlikely that they will know what to do in such situations. Our batsmen are also not heavily seasoned with experience, except Azhar Ali. Our management, especially Misbah, has no coaching experience. WY has coaching experience but there is a lot of evidence that he wasn't the right fit for the job.

So it's more about lack of improvisation and the lack of experience that's harming our cricket, though there might be other problems that we don't know. It would be unlikely for a professional international team to go in without planning, so I'll give you that, but the problems are far larger then, because it points towards issues that cannot be addressed so easily. You cannot teach a bowler how to follow the bowling plans, they must perfect the execution themselves.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Pakistan as like other sides, would definitely have bowling plans. The bowlers just aren't good enough to execute them. The game has moved on from Pakistan and that's the sad reality. Forget about batting or bowling, Pakistan is pathetic in their fielding & fitness levels as well. Ball tempering and chucking hid Pakistan's weakness as a bowling unit for years and now that those two elements have been removed from the game, Pakistan has finally gotten the reality check.

 

[naseem]

Problem is fielders don't field according to plan...

Haris Sohail
Shan Masood

 

[Local.Dada]

Serious question, does Pakistan team have analysts? Statisticians etc.

I mean is the strategy dependent on “experience” and “Pakistani 90’s badmaashi juzbaa” ?

I don’t see that there is any method to the Pakistani batting or bowling approach, either the analysts are substandard or the players not
Good enough to execute plans

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Serious question, does Pakistan team have analysts? Statisticians etc.

I mean is the strategy dependent on “experience” and “Pakistani 90’s badmaashi juzbaa” ?

I don’t see that there is any method to the Pakistani batting or bowling approach, either the analysts are substandard or the players not
Good enough to execute plans

You missed the daleri part. Probably the current guys are not tagda enough

 

[MMHS]

Serious question, does Pakistan team have analysts? Statisticians etc.

I mean is the strategy dependent on “experience” and “Pakistani 90’s badmaashi juzbaa” ?

I don’t see that there is any method to the Pakistani batting or bowling approach, either the analysts are substandard or the players not
Good enough to execute plans

There is enough analysis & background work done - players are just not good enough to execute. I give you a classic example - Shan Masood. He worked on his batting and executed a plan - won’t touch anything wide and leave balls on length. It worked for a short period in SAF & AUS, where ball moves less but bounces more - Shan kept on hitting short balls selectively and left the good length ones on bounce. Now, it took one innings in UK for Anderson & gong to figure this out - they worked out on his another weakness, measurement outside off (to leave) and incapability to drive on rose, unless it’s a solid half-volley. Since then, just check how many times he has been LBW (or bowled) to same pattern since that OTrafford hundred.

This is just one example - now Shan can work on this for two years and he’ll cover his second hole .... this by the age of 40, he should become a complete batsman. Unfortunately, international cricket is not the place where you learn on job.

Also, I must say PCT did execute one “plan” of OP in this series for sure .... at Hagley, Ken Williamson was caught at third-man (tactically placed, in Test you hardly put a third man otherwise ...), for slashing with “hard hand”, after uncharacteristically batting for 238 with soft hands. So, you can’t blame the lack of plan all together, though may not be like Woolmer’s lap top play book, but planning is there.

Also, to execute a plan - you need skills and intelligence.....

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I agree with this somewhat. Pakistan seem to have a much more methodical approach to batting in test cricket and theat can be seen in the results of SENA tours in the last 5 years. Credit to Mickey and Grant Flower for that. The bowling , on the other hand has been quite clueless. I agree that it is a skills issue as well. Not sure Pakistan has had te bowlers to execute the necessary skills on a consistent basis .

 

[Local.Dada]

There is enough analysis & background work done - players are just not good enough to execute. I give you a classic example - Shan Masood. He worked on his batting and executed a plan - won’t touch anything wide and leave balls on length. It worked for a short period in SAF & AUS, where ball moves less but bounces more - Shan kept on hitting short balls selectively and left the good length ones on bounce. Now, it took one innings in UK for Anderson & gong to figure this out - they worked out on his another weakness, measurement outside off (to leave) and incapability to drive on rose, unless it’s a solid half-volley. Since then, just check how many times he has been LBW (or bowled) to same pattern since that OTrafford hundred.

This is just one example - now Shan can work on this for two years and he’ll cover his second hole .... this by the age of 40, he should become a complete batsman. Unfortunately, international cricket is not the place where you learn on job.

Also, I must say PCT did execute one “plan” of OP in this series for sure .... at Hagley, Ken Williamson was caught at third-man (tactically placed, in Test you hardly put a third man otherwise ...), for slashing with “hard hand”, after uncharacteristically batting for 238 with soft hands. So, you can’t blame the lack of plan all together, though may not be like Woolmer’s lap top play book, but planning is there.

Also, to execute a plan - you need skills and intelligence.....

Thanks, good post. However isn’t Shan a rich man who has his own coach? Not sure how much of his strategy is given by analysts hired by PCT.

When I see Pakistan batting it is always a session of block and then suddenly someone switches into T20 mode. Similarly the bowling lengths are all over, that’s why I had a doubt about it.

I think the only advantage hiring guys like Kirsten etc is they have their own team. Kirsten even introduced sports phycologists etc to Indian sports culture and other modern training methods. However if the players themselves are low
Quality not sure how throwing big money at big coaches will help.

 

[MMHS]

Thanks, good post. However isn’t Shan a rich man who has his own coach? Not sure how much of his strategy is given by analysts hired by PCT.

When I see Pakistan batting it is always a session of block and then suddenly someone switches into T20 mode. Similarly the bowling lengths are all over, that’s why I had a doubt about it.

I think the only advantage hiring guys like Kirsten etc is they have their own team. Kirsten even introduced sports phycologists etc to Indian sports culture and other modern training methods. However if the players themselves are low
Quality not sure how throwing big money at big coaches will help.

I give the answer from another sports - soccer. With Petro dollar, Middle Eastern oil rich countries have hired the best of the best coaches that money can buy - the Mennottis, Pererras, Miltanovics, Pfisters, .......... these coaches picked 35-40 players like a military training camp for years and it did take Saudi Arab, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE ... to World Cup for a period from the easiest of qualifying zones - Asia. But eventually, it got exposed. The strongest teams from Asian zone are Japan, SKorea, Iran, war torn Iraq... even North Korea. NZ is unlucky that unlike Aussies, they are to compete with South American’s for a spot in WC, otherwise both AuS- NZ would have been two regular spots from Asia.

Coaching, planning.... can only enhance what you have at base - if that’s not strong....

 

[Greenstorm]

Even during Mickey's era, I don't think we used to watch videos and target the weaknesses of each batsman let alone with these two paindus in charge.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

No. Jazba is enough for our bowlers. Under Azhar Mahmood, bowling plans were quite visible but not under Waqar.

 

[Markhor]

From Waqar's own mouth in an interview a few years ago:

“We’ve never given importance to coaching. We were never analytical or scientific. That guy is there [he points to the video analysis man on the dressing-room balcony], yeah sure he’s there. And he’s sitting there, and it’s kind of a highlights package and you can sit and analyse moments. But actually in the ’90s we never did analyse anyone: ‘he plays well here, don’t put it there.’ It’s not how long do you bowl at him there, what kind of field, what lengths, what is the B plan, the C plan, after that if it goes wrong, what happens? We had one plan. Go out there, get a wicket. We had resources. We sensed it and said, OK, bring Waqar back. Not even the captain [decided]. Sometimes I would go to the captain, give me two overs, let me do it. It was a kind of teamwork within the team but not like we’ll have a plan from before.

“No other country does it. Match-winners are always handy. Shoaib Akhtar? Match-winner. He’ll be ugly throughout the game, but with one or two overs he’ll change it, one spell. That’s why you play those characters. You can’t put the game in a shell where you have to be calculating, or planned or on this laptop, seeing how often this guy has gotten that guy out. Don’t do that.”

His philosophy hasn't evolved since the 1990s. So what are people expecting.

 

[ElRaja]

From Waqar's own mouth in an interview a few years ago:



His philosophy hasn't evolved since the 1990s. So what are people expecting.

semi pro mentality in a professional age, total story of pak since 99.

 

[Shafi]

Can’t expect anything better from Waqar. In his playing days he was like a bowling machine without having any thought. A robot/machine cannot teach anyone to be innovative. It can only teach you same repetitive things regardless the situation/pitch.

 

[Savak]

Wasim and Waqar would have struggled had they been in their primes from 2000 to 2020. Batsmen now play 150 km/hr pace very comfortably and reverse swing is no longer a novelty. T-20 cricket has changed batting completely.

 

[Buffet]

From Waqar's own mouth in an interview a few years ago:



His philosophy hasn't evolved since the 1990s. So what are people expecting.

No wonder 90s team performed below their potential.

 

[Buffet]

Wasim and Waqar would have struggled had they been in their primes from 2000 to 2020. Batsmen now play 150 km/hr pace very comfortably and reverse swing is no longer a novelty. T-20 cricket has changed batting completely.

Wasim could use the new ball as well. He was not just about the reverse. Wasim can surely do more than fine in any era.

 

[Savak]

Have read a few articles on Bharat Arun and the way he operates is very professional and scientific in nature. He does not believe in luck or tukka at all. He is all about planning, analysis, repetition. He works hard in the nets with all the bowlers and gives each bowler 1-1 attention and tells them exactly how they are supposed to bowl to each individual opposition batsman.

He also is a strong advocate for fitness and the more fit you are, the more you will be able to bowl at 140 km/hr for 20-25 overs without any reduction in effectiveness. His quality of work speaks for itself, since he took charge, almost every Indian bowler from Bhumrah, Ishant, Shami, Yadav, Bhuveneshvar, Pandya, Saini, Siraj has improved and they all bowl to a plan and don't just blindly run in hoping for a wicket.

The man has put Pakistan's so called bowling legends i.e. Wasim and Waqar to shame as both have worked with some of these bowlers at different points in time and neither made any difference

 

[Savak]

Wasim could use the new ball as well. He was not just about the reverse. Wasim can surely do more than fine in any era.

Maybe but still i doubt he would be as economical as he was in the 80's and 90's.

 

[Buffet]

Maybe but still i doubt he would be as economical as he was in the 80's and 90's.

No bowler of the 80s/90s will as economical in the T20 era. It has very little to do with Wasim.

 

[Buffet]

Have read a few articles on Bharat Arun and the way he operates is very professional and scientific in nature. He does not believe in luck or tukka at all. He is all about planning, analysis, repetition. He works hard in the nets with all the bowlers and gives each bowler 1-1 attention and tells them exactly how they are supposed to bowl to each individual opposition batsman.

He also is a strong advocate for fitness and the more fit you are, the more you will be able to bowl at 140 km/hr for 20-25 overs without any reduction in effectiveness. His quality of work speaks for itself, since he took charge, almost every Indian bowler from Bhumrah, Ishant, Shami, Yadav, Bhuveneshvar, Pandya, Saini, Siraj has improved and they all bowl to a plan and don't just blindly run in hoping for a wicket.

The man has put Pakistan's so called bowling legends i.e. Wasim and Waqar to shame as both have worked with some of these bowlers at different points in time and neither made any difference

Wasim - Lock your wrist.
Waqar - ??

 

[Colorblind Genius]

I am really starting to wonder whether Pakistan bother to do video analysis of opposition batsmen (and bowlers batting) in Test cricket.

I first wondered when Chris Woakes was allowed to score 84 not out to lead England to a 3 wicket victory in the First Test at Old Trafford in 2020.

Woakes is a decent batsman with a well-known weakness against short-pitched fast bowling. He came to the crease at 117-5, with England chasing 277 to win. It took 34 overs for him to receive his second bouncer, as Pakistan persisted with Yasir Shah as if it was 2016. In reality, Yasir failed to strike in his next 17 overs, and then took two wickets on the verge of victory.

Now in New Zealand we see the same thing. There is no sign of any individualised plans for each batsman. I don't see the field changing between batsmen and I don't see the line and length changing.

The worry for me is that this is very similar to what happened in Waqar Younis' own bowling career. If you recall the 1992 series, he had no real strategy for how to strike with the newer ball, and each innings consisted of him waiting until a 45 over old ball was scratched and reverse-swinging. Naseem Shah in may ways is like a slower, shorter Waqar, but of course he never gets to bowl with a damaged ball.

The Christchurch wicket for the Second Test was never a 297 wicket - it always looked much more like a 450 track, and it was only the hopelessness of the geriatric Pakistani top order which made 297 look more competitive than it really was.

But it's not a 659-6 declared wicket either. Batsmen like Henry Nicholls and Daryl Mitchell should not be cruising to easy centuries without being challenged.

Bowling plans are a complex affair.

The bowling coach needs to watch videos of each batsman - including the tailenders - and to work out:

1. What line and length is our first choice for each batsman?

2. What field do we set for each batsman?

3. If that doesn't work out, what is Plan B?
(Remember Mohammad Amir bowling wide outside off-stump against Australia at Brisbane in 2016-17 after the Pink Kookaburra lost its hardness? He ended up with 4-97 and 1-37 on a wicket on which Mitchell Starc took 3-63 and 4-119.)
4. What combination of bowlers do you bowl at any one time?
If you think back to Hobart in 1999-2000, Pakistan was bowled out for 222 and Australia reached 191-1. But Wasim Akram worked out that his best bet was fast inswing at one end and spin at the other. For the next 20 overs he rotated Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar at one end with Saqlain Mushtaq at the other end. In those 20.1 overs Pakistan took the last 9 wickets for 55 runs, and Australia was dismissed for 246.

At least Mickey Arthur understood that Pakistan needed a Plan A and a Plan B for each batsman.

Do Pakistan have individualised plans at all any more? I don't see any evidence that they do!

No.
We have a bowling coach who was a one trick pony (and pretty darn good at) in his days.

His inswingimg Yorker did not require any game plan or field set up so he never learned it, and hence he can’t teach it. And to make it worse, he can’t teach his inswingimg Yorker to anyone either.

 

[Yk313]

From Waqar's own mouth in an interview a few years ago:



His philosophy hasn't evolved since the 1990s. So what are people expecting.

Thank you for this, made my day. Read it in his voice. Remembered his interview on some TV channel and also what he implied during a Masterclass on SKY when asked how he would have bowled during T20s.

Recollection is a bit hazy now but if if I am not mistaken the above also offers a window into examples such as why when Jadeja was camped waiting for Waqar’s yorkers in 1996, Waqar kept persisting with the same option. Despite going for runs he was adamant and confident of going through Jadeja that day.

7/10 or 8/10 days he would have done too but he lacked the awareness or maturity to know that something needed to give on those 2-3 days it did not work.

 

[Yk313]

Have read a few articles on Bharat Arun and the way he operates is very professional and scientific in nature. He does not believe in luck or tukka at all. He is all about planning, analysis, repetition. He works hard in the nets with all the bowlers and gives each bowler 1-1 attention and tells them exactly how they are supposed to bowl to each individual opposition batsman.

He also is a strong advocate for fitness and the more fit you are, the more you will be able to bowl at 140 km/hr for 20-25 overs without any reduction in effectiveness. His quality of work speaks for itself, since he took charge, almost every Indian bowler from Bhumrah, Ishant, Shami, Yadav, Bhuveneshvar, Pandya, Saini, Siraj has improved and they all bowl to a plan and don't just blindly run in hoping for a wicket.

The man has put Pakistan's so called bowling legends i.e. Wasim and Waqar to shame as both have worked with some of these bowlers at different points in time and neither made any difference

So basically, the common sensical and professional way of proceeding with sport in the 21st century?

Not looking to undermine your post but I highly doubt that Arun is doing anything with Indian bowlers that his AUS/ENG/SAF/NZD are not doing or would not have considered at all.

PAK naturally is keen to live in Neverland and resolute in drifting towards the territory of being deemed hopeless.

Think more than his drills, which help with discipline and basic bowling (over/spell planning nous), I would humbly say that even he/IND’s bowlers would have been slightly surprised at how the AUS batsmen actually folded and “responded” to a well-planned attack with some indiscipline (possibly borne out of technical inadequacies) and timidity.

Bit of a hot take but feel like the series was won by a combination of IND’s bowling and batting. But from the AUS side it was lost by their batting and fielding.

 

[Savak]

Lol Bharat Arun will tell Waqar to get lost and be like whatever if he ever caught him telling a group of young bowlers that planning too much is useless.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

They are incapable.

 

[Kroll]

Forget bowling, there are no plans for anything. All that happens is that Pakistan turn up, get a phainty, get humiliated, put out some statements afterwards that the team is young and is still learning.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[ishtiaq_ctg]

Thank you for this, made my day. Read it in his voice. Remembered his interview on some TV channel and also what he implied during a Masterclass on SKY when asked how he would have bowled during T20s.

Recollection is a bit hazy now but if if I am not mistaken the above also offers a window into examples such as why when Jadeja was camped waiting for Waqar’s yorkers in 1996, Waqar kept persisting with the same option. Despite going for runs he was adamant and confident of going through Jadeja that day.

7/10 or 8/10 days he would have done too but he lacked the awareness or maturity to know that something needed to give on those 2-3 days it did not work.

Yep He kept on bowling the same length against Jadeja in QF. Didnt tried anything else except couple of good length balls.

 

[Manunited18]

Bowling plans are necessary, but for me it's the skill set that ultimately matters, Australia have all the data analysis in their back room staff yet in crunch situations when the pressure been on they've flopped

 

[Manunited18]

Lol Bharat Arun will tell Waqar to get lost and be like whatever if he ever caught him telling a group of young bowlers that planning too much is useless.

Then why have Australian quicks failed to impliment their plans when it counts, they have abundance of analyses and so on, ultimately it's the skill set that matters

 

[cricketjoshila]

I doubt that Pakistan dont plan. They plan but perhaps poorly. Playing Naseem Shah is an example of poor planning.

 

[saeedhk]

Science, analysis and planning have no part in Pakistan cricket.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Then why have Australian quicks failed to impliment their plans when it counts, they have abundance of analyses and so on, ultimately it's the skill set that matters

Because the Indian batsman had counter plans.

They kept bowling short at the body. Indians kept taking blows or hitting them.

 

[Savak]

Because the Indian batsman had counter plans.

They kept bowling short at the body. Indians kept taking blows or hitting them.

Cummins, Hazelwood lack a yorker. They can't bowl reverse swing, their lengths were predictable. Starcs lengths are predictable as well ie yorker, full swinging ball, bouncer, just short of a length

 

[observer1]

Some fans on PP need to stop acting childish and thick.

It's pretty common to have a short term and long term plan.

You can't plan against poor fielding.

 

[Savak]

The Indians knowing the wicket is flat as a pancake have now resorted to the same tactics they used in Australia i.e. the pacers keep targetting the batsmen on off and middle stump, packing the leg side field to ensure no easy runs, the batsman if he gets frustrated will try to shovel and risks getting LBW, if the batsman flicks he gets caught on the leg side packed field.

Let's see if the English players show the Aussies how to play against this line and length like a boss.

 

[Abdurmirr]

Biggest problem with our bowlers at the moment.

I remember in 2019 when we were touring Australia, Warner was coming off a horrid series in England and he essentially became Broad's bunny. The key feature of his dismissal's being him missing balls moving away from around the wicket. Now what do our brilliant bowlers do when bowling to a Warner short on runs or confidence, bowl pies from over the wicket and let him score 150 and 329* on the trot.

This same pattern has been occurring for the last 4 years. Against England we let Chris Woakes score a match winning 80 not out when he'd been out of sorts with his main issue being with short pitch bowling, what do we do- bowl only one bouncer his whole innings. I could give 3-5 more examples.

Until our bowlers develop match awareness and enhance their bowling IQs, we will continue to see our bowlers get tonked and murdered against quality line ups