Does domestic average matter in Pakistan cricket?

[Abdullah Rabbani]

In a statement CS inzimam ul haq said stat's and average doesn't matter for me. We see all over the world that best performing player will selected in international team but in pakistan scenerio is different a player is selected in wrong format , out of form or on likes and dislike...

How long this go non merit selection like & dislike wrong format slection why stat's and average doesn't matter in pakistan?

 

[aukhan]

Selection is based on likeness and dis likeness. Averages doesn't matter at all.

 

[DRsohail]

ONly matters if you are bateeja or shan masood.

 

[topspin]

Strike rates are more relevant if they're averaging 35+.

I would prefer a batsman who averages high 30s with a SR of 60 to one who averages 50 at a SR 40 because the latter is far more likely to be:

1. Match winner who can lead from the front
2. Less selfish
3. Has more shots in their armour
4. More technically correct
5. Better batting intelligence
6. Can adequately perform against pace and spin bowling
7. A greater ability to handle world class bowlers
8. Better at rotating the strike

Ofc you need 1 or 2 players with very solid defensive game as well but ideally 80% of your batting line up should be able to bat at a 50+ strike rate.

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

Strike rates are more relevant if they're averaging 35+.

I would prefer a batsman who averages high 30s with a SR of 60 to one who averages 50 at a SR 40 because the latter is far more likely to be:

1. Match winner who can lead from the front
2. Less selfish
3. Has more shots in their armour
4. More technically correct
5. Better batting intelligence
6. Can adequately perform against pace and spin bowling
7. A greater ability to handle world class bowlers
8. Better at rotating the strike

Ofc you need 1 or 2 players with very solid defensive game as well but ideally 80% of your batting line up should be able to bat at a 50+ strike rate.

Can Asad, Azhar, Hafeez And Imam Come In Your Category

 

[Markhor]

Strike rates are more relevant if they're averaging 35+.

I would prefer a batsman who averages high 30s with a SR of 60 to one who averages 50 at a SR 40 because the latter is far more likely to be:

1. Match winner who can lead from the front
2. Less selfish
3. Has more shots in their armour
4. More technically correct
5. Better batting intelligence
6. Can adequately perform against pace and spin bowling
7. A greater ability to handle world class bowlers
8. Better at rotating the strike

Ofc you need 1 or 2 players with very solid defensive game as well but ideally 80% of your batting line up should be able to bat at a 50+ strike rate.

If a Test batsman could do all of those things they wouldn't be averaging in the 30s.

 

[topspin]

Strike rates are more relevant if they're averaging 35+.

I would prefer a batsman who averages high 30s with a SR of 60 to one who averages 50 at a SR 40 because the latter is far more likely to be:

1. Match winner who can lead from the front
2. Less selfish
3. Has more shots in their armour
4. More technically correct
5. Better batting intelligence
6. Can adequately perform against pace and spin bowling
7. A greater ability to handle world class bowlers
8. Better at rotating the strike

Ofc you need 1 or 2 players with very solid defensive game as well but ideally 80% of your batting line up should be able to bat at a 50+ strike rate.

Correction I meant to say "the former is more likely to be ..... "

 

[asifp]

As i have said mulitple of times, 100 years of test cricket proves on thing.

Domestic averages are the single number one criteria to predict international success.

Look at England, trying all these guys averaging in the 30s and it is a revolving door.

What do Inzi,Younis, Moyo have in commong....all were great in domestic

Inzi should think how else is a person supposed to show he is good enough to be in the team. Domestic is the only place for the person to showcase his talent.

On top of that wrong format selection.

 

[asifp]

Strike rates are more relevant if they're averaging 35+.

I would prefer a batsman who averages high 30s with a SR of 60 to one who averages 50 at a SR 40 because the latter is far more likely to be:

1. Match winner who can lead from the front
2. Less selfish
3. Has more shots in their armour
4. More technically correct
5. Better batting intelligence
6. Can adequately perform against pace and spin bowling
7. A greater ability to handle world class bowlers
8. Better at rotating the strike

Ofc you need 1 or 2 players with very solid defensive game as well but ideally 80% of your batting line up should be able to bat at a 50+ strike rate.

Okay tell me one player in the history of cricket, just one player that fits this criteria. Not Pakistan, picky any country, any team. Its garbage that like this gets thrown around, with no evidence to back it up.

 

[topspin]

If a Test batsman could do all of those things they wouldn't be averaging in the 30s.

Generally speaking yes and ideally you want batsmen who can average and strike it both at 50+. However one must consider some of these Pakistani batsmen have been brought up and some still to this day play on substandard wickets, where you get punished for being a good stroke maker (like Babar Azam) - whereas those with strong defensive game who nudge and nurdle thrive (Misbah and Fawad).

The domestic pitches should allow batsmen to exhibit their shots - this needs to be addressed and should be the no.1 priority for PCB while the previous establishment was far more concerned with trying to bring cricket back to Pakistan and even PSL.

Don't get me wrong it is also vital they solve these issues however nothing should be prioritised more than the fundamentals towards a solid, competitive domestic cricket structure.

If Ehsan Mani and co choose to neglect this we will continue to lag behind the top sides. Take the case of South Africa during the Apartheid era - despite not playing test cricket during that period still managed produced world class cricketers such as Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock.

Also I should correct my previous post where I meant to say "the former is far more likely to be: ............." - in favour of those with slightly lower averages but significant better strike rates.

 

[The Viper]

Okay tell me one player in the history of cricket, just one player that fits this criteria. Not Pakistan, picky any country, any team. Its garbage that like this gets thrown around, with no evidence to back it up.

I don’t think he fully fits that criteria but Butler is a recent example of an aggressive batsmen who didn’t average that much in first class but showed maturity. His return has been pretty decent.

 

[topspin]

Okay tell me one player in the history of cricket, just one player that fits this criteria. Not Pakistan, picky any country, any team. Its garbage that like this gets thrown around, with no evidence to back it up.

Buttler

 

[asifp]

Buttler

This is called short term memory. You have quoted me 1 player in history based on his performance in 5 games?

Please tell me someone who has played a full career, atleast 50 games or made 3,000-5,000 runs.

 

[topspin]

Can Asad, Azhar, Hafeez And Imam Come In Your Category

Asad after 60 odd tests has a SR of under 50 - so no.

Azhar is the 10 - 20% of batsmen you need in your side with a solid defensive game, so he is to an extent exempt from all that criteria. However since YK has retired he hasn't been able to show any command in his batting when required - if anything he's got slower these days.

Hafeez although bats at a good tempo is a bunny on outside Asia and against quality pace. He's made his name in test cricket on UAE feather beds.

Imam has shown good temperament and has a promising future but I prefer a top 3 of Azhar, Fakhar and then Haris.

Obviously it is not ideal to pick a 35-40 FC average batsman (even with a SR of 60+) or a a batsman averaging 50 with a slow SR (35-42 range shall we say) but the lower average batsman is generally more preferable because they will more likely win your team more matches.

We have to embrace cricket isn't played with the same attrition before the T20 revolution - the game has changed and requires more dynamic batsman.

 

[asifp]

Lets look at the highest run getters in the history of the game

Sachin
Ponting
Kallis
Dravid
Cook
Sanga
Lara
Chanderpaul


The list goes on and on. You know what all these guys had in common? They were great in domestic cricket.


NOw lets look at the current Fab 4
Kohli
Smith
Williamson
Root

Guess what they all have in common. They are all great in domestic, especially Smith and Kohli

The evidence is smacking you in the face and you choose to ignore it

No but our visionary selector knows something that well defy the history of cricket.

 

[topspin]

This is called short term memory. You have quoted me 1 player in history based on his performance in 5 games?

Please tell me someone who has played a full career, atleast 50 games or made 3,000-5,000 runs.

You asked me for one player and now you're kicking up a fuss because you can't be content with it.

I didn't say that a batsman averaging 35-40 @ SR 55-60 is ideal, I said it is preferable over a batsman who is averaging 50 @ SR of 40.

 

[asifp]

You asked me for one player and now you're kicking up a fuss because you can't be content with it.

I didn't say that a batsman averaging 35-40 @ SR 55-60 is ideal, I said it is preferable over a batsman who is averaging 50 @ SR of 40.

I am not creating a fuss. i am saying 5 matches is not a good enough sample size!

Once he has played 20 test matches then we can talk!

 

[topspin]

Lets look at the highest run getters in the history of the game

Sachin
Ponting
Kallis
Dravid
Cook
Sanga
Lara
Chanderpaul


The list goes on and on. You know what all these guys had in common? They were great in domestic cricket.


NOw lets look at the current Fab 4
Kohli
Smith
Williamson
Root

Guess what they all have in common. They are all great in domestic, especially Smith and Kohli

The evidence is smacking you in the face and you choose to ignore it

No but our visionary selector knows something that well defy the history of cricket.

I'm not talking about the history of the game, I'm talking about current affairs. Also you completely misunderstood my post. I never implied that domestic performances don't matter.

All I said was I prefer a 35-40 averaging batsman who can strike it at 55-60 over a 45-50 average batsman striking at 35-40. This isn't that hard to understand. You may have your own preference and that's absolutely fine.

 

[asifp]

I'm not talking about the history of the game, I'm talking about current affairs. Also you completely misunderstood my post. I never implied that domestic performances don't matter.

All I said was I prefer a 35-40 averaging batsman who can strike it at 55-60 over a 45-50 average batsman striking at 35-40. This isn't that hard to understand. You may have your own preference and that's absolutely fine.

My issue is this.

Lets say we accept Butler as the exception, a batsman averaging 35 is unlikely to do well in internationl crikcet. If he averages 35 in domestic there is a high chance he will only average 30 in test cricket, which is not good enough.

Selection should be based on what you think is a consistent criteria of success. Our batting is a major issue. Lets worry about making runs now.

 

[topspin]

My issue is this.

Lets say we accept Butler as the exception, a batsman averaging 35 is unlikely to do well in internationl crikcet. If he averages 35 in domestic there is a high chance he will only average 30 in test cricket, which is not good enough.

Selection should be based on what you think is a consistent criteria of success. Our batting is a major issue. Lets worry about making runs now.

If a batsman can average 35-40 in Pakistani FC cricket with a healthy strike rate more often than not, they have the quality to succeed at least in Asia because chances are they can play on the front and back foot against pace + spin. A player who has more shots in their bank is more likely to go further in the game if they can handle the mental pressure of international cricket.

This type of batsman may not have been able to average 50 for one or more of the following reasons:

1. Because of they had a bad start in domestics but are now finding their feet at professional level in other words struggled when they were inexperienced.

2. It might be because they don't convert 50s to 100s but are still consistent

3. They can turn change complexion of an innings when they score brisk tons but they also get out for low scores fairly often as well.

My problem with a play striking it at 35 to low 40s is that they will cost their team more matches than win unless your team is blessed with a strong battling line up - something which Pakistan clearly don't possess.

If our batting line up was solid I would be more flexible and perhaps take the conservative option.

My perspective might be different because of my profession - I'm an investment fund manager where I have to take calculated risks for a living because I appreciate the potential reward that comes with greater risk. Now my point is Pakistan's batting culture isn't the strongest because the management, players and even the fans in general prefer a very cautious approach. If we expect change in Pakistan's fortunes we need to be brave enough to try younger players over older ones and back those who are more gifted than those who may provide consistent returns but let you down when it really counts - case in point is Azhar Ali with the way he batted in the last test. Scored runs but wasn't enough because of his approach.

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

As i have said mulitple of times, 100 years of test cricket proves on thing.

Domestic averages are the single number one criteria to predict international success.

Look at England, trying all these guys averaging in the 30s and it is a revolving door.

What do Inzi,Younis, Moyo have in commong....all were great in domestic

Inzi should think how else is a person supposed to show he is good enough to be in the team. Domestic is the only place for the person to showcase his talent.

On top of that wrong format selection.

How our selecters learn this

 

[Sadozai]

In Pakistan cricket blood relations and political / business connections matter the most, not sure about domestic average etc..

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

In Pakistan cricket blood relations and political / business connections matter the most, not sure about domestic average etc..

It hurt Pakistan most

 

[Sadozai]

It hurt Pakistan most

yeah

 

[ARK Rafay]

Average is the no.1 criteria. IMO S/R comes to play but when you have two batsman averaging over 50. You have to choose the one with the better S/R. Rather than selecting a 25 Average player who's S/R in List A is 140 and vice versa

 

[ShahidDar08]

Never mattered in Pak Cricket, only links matter the most!!!

 

[Badsha]

As i have said mulitple of times, 100 years of test cricket proves on thing.

Domestic averages are the single number one criteria to predict international success.

Look at England, trying all these guys averaging in the 30s and it is a revolving door.

What do Inzi,Younis, Moyo have in commong....all were great in domestic

Inzi should think how else is a person supposed to show he is good enough to be in the team. Domestic is the only place for the person to showcase his talent.

On top of that wrong format selection.

Ramprakash and butcher for England. Look them up

 

[MMHS]

Domestic stats are the first & most important factor for selection. Sometimes domestic stats shed the deficiencies of a player (batsmen, may be because of the playing conditions- cricket is the most influenced game, when it comes to playing surface), but in history of the game there are hardly any player who has done exceptionally better at international level, than his domestic stats. These days, international cricket has expanded to lower tier hence lots of substandard teams playing international cricket, so we do see statistical anomalies like Imam Ul Haq, but it’s rare that in a long run players out performing in Test or ODI over their domestic stats.

I see few examples here - most of them actually underperformed at Test/ODI level than their domestics, which still can be explainable...... but PCB’s case a bit opposite - they pick players with poor domestic stats & expect them to do better in internationals!!!!!!

More than direct stats, I am more surprised with the picks by format - players doing well in one format, is picked for another one, which doesn’t fit his game!!!! Also, it’s easier to pick 6/7 batsmen for Test squad, than ODI. In Test, one can pick the best 6/7 batsmen (by stats or hunch), and it’ll work somewhat - for ODI, there are several key factors - SR, average/volume, batting position, % of boundary/singles, SR during different phase of the game ..... one example I can recall is Asad Shafiq - guy scored tons of List A runs batting in top 3, then he is expected to match that in ODI from No. 4-6!!!!! Don’t think PCB uses appropriate stats for selecting ODI team, which is the most tactical format. Even with least reliable domestic stats, some filter can be used to sort players, but that probably doesn’t fit all other agendas.

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

Average is the no.1 criteria. IMO S/R comes to play but when you have two batsman averaging over 50. You have to choose the one with the better S/R. Rather than selecting a 25 Average player who's S/R in List A is 140 and vice versa

But our selecters have art to destroy talent

 

[Usman Chadda]

It shouldn't. The likes of Fawad Alam, Imran Farhat, Khurram Manzoor etc are testament to that fact.

 

[New Yorker]

If a Test batsman could do all of those things they wouldn't be averaging in the 30s.

The perfect reply, in one line.

When we say, "does something matter," we usually have in mind something like, does it have real weight, is it concrete, and if that is the connotation then the question is already overshooting its target I think.

Domestic averages do not provide us with any certainty in the question of selection. But nothing else does either, including subjective assessments of technique, raw talent, and other such blather. Only hindsight is never wrong.

If we rephrase the question as, can domestic averages be useful in selection, or, is it foolish to overlook domestic averages in selection, I would say absolutely for sure yes.

Why would you want to work with less information about a player, not more? Why would it not matter to you as selector in choosing players that one has scored 5 centuries, the other none?

Something else is going on this strange kind of debate that we have over statistics, which has nothing to do with pragmatic reasoning or any such thing, it has to do with a kind of ideology.

It is not incidental that there is sudden obsession with SR, that you should pick someone on SR not average, which is to say their ability to take wickets. "strike rate" is to a batsman what "pace" is to a bowler. It is that mystical something which makes us believe that they have it what it takes to succeed, to impose their will on the world, even if they never actually succeed in doing so.

And of course, it is what injects thrill into the spectacle of cricket.

SR is SR yaar.

 

[someone21]

Nowadays, “ fast track” is number 1 method. Perform well in certain competitions or t20s league, and you will get national team call-up.

If anything, one should play less first class so sample siZe is smaller and thus the novelty factor remains. Raw player is a goos thing nowadays

 

[Manager101]

Best way for selection is shortlisting the top 5 batting averages and then select one considering all other batting factors.

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

Imam and hafeez failed again in 1st inning poor average players despite in domestic we have better batsman but this inzi's unmerit corruption on high

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

In a statement CS inzimam ul haq said stat's and average doesn't matter for me. We see all over the world that best performing player will selected in international team but in pakistan scenerio is different a player is selected in wrong format , out of form or on likes and dislike...

How long this go non merit selection like & dislike wrong format slection why stat's and average doesn't matter in pakistan?

Abdullah you must read Cricket, search history, observe carefully and than assess and make judgements.


Inzamam ul Haq is one of Top 4 batsman produced by Pakistan Cricket in last 71 years. He is not a keyboard warrior nor a random internet surfer looking for stats only from one or two websites. He knows what he is doing especially wrt batting department.


Do you know that Babar Azam was averaging 24-27 after 15 odd FC matches without a FC ton and he was selected for Pakistan A to face Johnson, Starc, Siddle & Lyon ?

Guys like Rashid Latif criticised this move and called out selectors in those times for neglecting domestic performers.

Some here called Babar a pick by Lahore lobby especially Akmals who were themselves struggling to find place in national team.

In that FC like match Babar scores a hundred. He shut the mouth of those who criticised his selection. Babar came back to pakistan and scored his first FC hundred for SBP (If I am not wrong) and it was a double hundred. Only Ahsan Ali and Babar Azam's first FC hundred was a double ton (Last 20 years) and one was 19 and other was 20 only.

Note it was Semifinal of premier FC tournament in Pakistan.


You have got to have an eye to spot talent, skillset, potential, technique, ability and temperament of a player. (Not just Stats book)

Inzamam ul haq has one thing extra and that is experience of playing 100 plus Tests and 300 plus Odis.


Do read history of Shafiq Ahmad Papa, Mansoor Akhtar, Asif Mujtaba & Faisal Iqbal.



Inzamam ul Haq knows very very well as if Fawad Alam is better batsman than Babar Azam, Haris Sohail, Saud Shakeel, Saad Ali, Usman Salahuddin and Abid Ali or not ¿


Domestic numbers/stats are Subjective.


This is an age of Social Media. Let's get our views and opinions relayed to CS but let him do his Job. He knows what he is doing. The Opening Post is trying to suggest that Inzamam ul Haq who played for Pakistan for 16 years is some random guy who knows nothing about " Selection "


Lastly, do venture into how Mohammad Yousuf played for Pakistan and who spotted him when and where !!

 

[Darkrai]

Abdullah you must read Cricket, search history, observe carefully and than assess and make judgements.


Inzamam ul Haq is one of Top 4 batsman produced by Pakistan Cricket in last 71 years. He is not a keyboard warrior nor a random internet surfer looking for stats only from one or two websites. He knows what he is doing especially wrt batting department.


Do you know that Babar Azam was averaging 24-27 after 15 odd FC matches without a FC ton and he was selected for Pakistan A to face Johnson, Starc, Siddle & Lyon ?

Guys like Rashid Latif criticised this move and called out selectors in those times for neglecting domestic performers.

Some here called Babar a pick by Lahore lobby especially Akmals who were themselves struggling to find place in national team.

In that FC like match Babar scores a hundred. He shut the mouth of those who criticised his selection. Babar came back to pakistan and scored his first FC hundred for SBP (If I am not wrong) and it was a double hundred. Only Ahsan Ali and Babar Azam's first FC hundred was a double ton (Last 20 years) and one was 19 and other was 20 only.

Note it was Semifinal of premier FC tournament in Pakistan.


You have got to have an eye to spot talent, skillset, potential, technique, ability and temperament of a player. (Not just Stats book)

Inzamam ul haq has one thing extra and that is experience of playing 100 plus Tests and 300 plus Odis.


Do read history of Shafiq Ahmad Papa, Mansoor Akhtar, Asif Mujtaba & Faisal Iqbal.



Inzamam ul Haq knows very very well as if Fawad Alam is better batsman than Babar Azam, Haris Sohail, Saud Shakeel, Saad Ali, Usman Salahuddin and Abid Ali or not ¿


Domestic numbers/stats are Subjective.


This is an age of Social Media. Let's get our views and opinions relayed to CS but let him do his Job. He knows what he is doing. The Opening Post is trying to suggest that Inzamam ul Haq who played for Pakistan for 16 years is some random guy who knows nothing about " Selection "


Lastly, do venture into how Mohammad Yousuf played for Pakistan and who spotted him when and where !!

What is the purpose of selecting Hafeez and Rahat ali? What talent does Inzi see that we can't?

Hafeez since 2016 averages 24 in Tests. Rahat averages 39 after playing 21 Test matches. Players in domestic who have better stats do not have the hidden talent of Rahat and Hafeez?

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

Abdullah you must read Cricket, search history, observe carefully and than assess and make judgements.


Inzamam ul Haq is one of Top 4 batsman produced by Pakistan Cricket in last 71 years. He is not a keyboard warrior nor a random internet surfer looking for stats only from one or two websites. He knows what he is doing especially wrt batting department.


Do you know that Babar Azam was averaging 24-27 after 15 odd FC matches without a FC ton and he was selected for Pakistan A to face Johnson, Starc, Siddle & Lyon ?

Guys like Rashid Latif criticised this move and called out selectors in those times for neglecting domestic performers.

Some here called Babar a pick by Lahore lobby especially Akmals who were themselves struggling to find place in national team.

In that FC like match Babar scores a hundred. He shut the mouth of those who criticised his selection. Babar came back to pakistan and scored his first FC hundred for SBP (If I am not wrong) and it was a double hundred. Only Ahsan Ali and Babar Azam's first FC hundred was a double ton (Last 20 years) and one was 19 and other was 20 only.

Note it was Semifinal of premier FC tournament in Pakistan.


You have got to have an eye to spot talent, skillset, potential, technique, ability and temperament of a player. (Not just Stats book)

Inzamam ul haq has one thing extra and that is experience of playing 100 plus Tests and 300 plus Odis.


Do read history of Shafiq Ahmad Papa, Mansoor Akhtar, Asif Mujtaba & Faisal Iqbal.



Inzamam ul Haq knows very very well as if Fawad Alam is better batsman than Babar Azam, Haris Sohail, Saud Shakeel, Saad Ali, Usman Salahuddin and Abid Ali or not ¿


Domestic numbers/stats are Subjective.


This is an age of Social Media. Let's get our views and opinions relayed to CS but let him do his Job. He knows what he is doing. The Opening Post is trying to suggest that Inzamam ul Haq who played for Pakistan for 16 years is some random guy who knows nothing about " Selection "


Lastly, do venture into how Mohammad Yousuf played for Pakistan and who spotted him when and where !!

I don't need more to search and not say he worst cs, everyone have it's on opinion how many time we need to Performe well lost 5 test from 6 played in uae whitwashed by newzealand 5:0 , how many players averaged more in international than domestic fakhar, haris and babar averages are not joke proved domestic average have much impact on international cricket

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

What is the purpose of selecting Hafeez and Rahat ali? What talent does Inzi see that we can't?

Hafeez since 2016 averages 24 in Tests. Rahat averages 39 after playing 21 Test matches. Players in domestic who have better stats do not have the hidden talent of Rahat and Hafeez?

Well this wasn't part of discussion. Hafeez was picked because of his Current form and his Overall Test numbers as opener which are only inferior to 3 openers of our entire history.

Many players over the years have performed for Pakistan once they excelled in one format and carried that confidence in another format but

I was against Hafeez's selection in playinh eleven and for that I have an argument based on ground realities. Will make an eye opening thread on that.


As far as Rahat is concerned I agree he does not deserve to be selected but Inzamam is carrying him with Pakistan A because He has eye on both Ehsan and Rahat for their experience of SA tour. Both bowled couple of good spells there. Note in SA the outfield and square are heavy (loads of sand) and it takes a toll on your body and you need to be superfit and experience is handy. So Ehsan and Rahat are in the mix and are being given gametime for Pakistan A to prove their worth again and be in contention. But again I believe that Rahat needs to play and perform in domestic cricket at present and than get picked for Pakistan A or Pakistan again. At present top pacer of last two FC seasons like Waqas Ahmed needs to be picked. He played 1 match and performed better than Taj and Mir and got dropped than, where he needed atleast one more FC match.

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

I don't need more to search and not say he worst cs, everyone have it's on opinion how many time we need to Performe well lost 5 test from 6 played in uae whitwashed by newzealand 5:0 , how many players averaged more in international than domestic fakhar, haris and babar averages are not joke proved domestic average have much impact on international cricket

You are negating your ownself here.

Babar Azam had zero FC hundred and an average of 25 in FC when he was picked for pakistan A four day squad 4 years ago and his FC average was barely 30 when he played his first Test for Pakistan.

Babar has been invested in at A level and Test level Level (2014 onwards) ignoring his first 20 FC matches performance and Aver under 30 because they (those who matter) felt that he is the longterm term replacement of Misbah & Younis ie 45,50 + averaging Test format and InshaAllah he will prove this if he remained fit. Already the signs are bright.

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

What is the purpose of selecting Hafeez and Rahat ali? What talent does Inzi see that we can't?

Hafeez since 2016 averages 24 in Tests. Rahat averages 39 after playing 21 Test matches. Players in domestic who have better stats do not have the hidden talent of Rahat and Hafeez?

What he said not more than joke bro, first every cricketer who paly 100 matches or more are not good coach or CS example waqar, amir, moin and javed failed.

What ? You have got to have an eye to spot talent, skillset, potential, technique, ability and temperament of a player. (Not just Stats book) Like M Saad, Ali Imran, Adil Amin Faheem, Rahat,Hafeez,bilal And Imam these have all thing but not stat.

He is backing talented player inzi who is now chief selecter a player who is underachiever because of un desiplane make joke all over the world because of fittness
Why doesn't he make mistake

 

[Abdullah Rabbani]

You are negating your ownself here.

Babar Azam had zero FC hundred and an average of 25 in FC when he was picked for pakistan A four day squad 4 years ago and his FC average was barely 30 when he played his first Test for Pakistan.

Babar has been invested in at A level and Test level Level (2014 onwards) ignoring his first 20 FC matches performance and Aver under 30 because they (those who matter) felt that he is the longterm term replacement of Misbah & Younis ie 45,50 + averaging Test format and InshaAllah he will prove this if he remained fit. Already the signs are bright.

O hello babar is different case, he proved his worth in la and t20 first then slected and also performed well in odi and t20i.
all know he failed in first 10 tests because of poor fc stat but show sign of becoming good test batsman and he is improving day by day, but like of m saad, adil amin ali imram and imam not do justice to merit poor in all format ,saad and saud have chance to become next babar