"Everyone has their own opinion, but you cannot say that I am selfish": Babar Azam

[mominsaigol]

Toh bhai kya criteria hai to classify as World class? Is it just an eye test and your observation?

BTW the individual player rankings are more accurate than the team ones. If we had a few more players in the top 10 we would've been more competitive in the 2023 WC

I already gave you my criteria on what classifies as World class?

To be World class you need to be in the upper echelons of batsmen across the world. Babar isn't, their 3 to 4 batsmen in every team that are objectively superior to him, and no c string bashing doesn't mean Jack, babar's average dropped from 60 to 56 in the world cup lol, that's what happens when he faces top teams.

That is not true, icc rankings are flawed because they do not account for games missed or teams scored against. Babar bullying C string Nz or SA would allow him to reach no 1, obviously when he faces proper bowlers like Marco jansen or chinaman he's useless.

Wdym by few more players? Imam was in the top 10 before the wc exposed him, Imam was literally ranked no 4, and now ranked no 17 after he got butchered in the cup.

Fakhar was ranked no 10 but poor performances in the asia cup dropped him to 13.

That's 3 players ranked no 1, no 4 and no 10 during the wc, kitnei players chahyei in top 10?

Australia didn't even have a single batsmen in the top 10 during the World cup, yet they won?

It was only after wc performances that Warner was pushed to no 7 from no 13 and Travis head reached no 19 from no 25?

The 2 stars of the wc quinton and rachin who scored multiple centuries aren't even in the top 10? Or even top 20 for that matter, yet they outperformed everyone except kohli?

No team besides India has more then 1 or 2 bats in their top 10 squad.

Pakistan and India were the only ones that had 3. Yet look at the difference between these 2 teams.

 

[daytrader]

I already gave you my criteria on what classifies as World class?

To be World class you need to be in the upper echelons of batsmen across the world. Babar isn't, their 3 to 4 batsmen in every team that are objectively superior to him, and no c string bashing doesn't mean Jack, babar's average dropped from 60 to 56 in the world cup lol, that's what happens when he faces top teams.

That is not true, icc rankings are flawed because they do not account for games missed or teams scored against. Babar bullying C string Nz or SA would allow him to reach no 1, obviously when he faces proper bowlers like Marco jansen or chinaman he's useless.

Wdym by few more players? Imam was in the top 10 before the wc exposed him, Imam was literally ranked no 4, and now ranked no 17 after he got butchered in the cup.

Fakhar was ranked no 10 but poor perfroamcnes in the asia cup dropped him to 13.

That's 3 players ranked no 1, no 4 and no 10 during the wc, kitnei players chahyei in top 10?

Australia didn't even have a single batsmen in the top 10 during the World cup, yet they won?

It was only after wc performances that Warner was pushed to no 7 from no 13 and Travis head reached no 19 from no 25?

The 2 stars of the wc quinton and rachin who scored multiple centuries aren't even in the top 10? Or even top 20 for that matter, yet they outperformed everyone except kohli?

No team besides India has more then 1 or 2 bats in their top 10 squad.

Pakistan and India were the only ones that had 3. Yet look at the difference between these 2 teams.

Nonsense argument.

Honest question, did you even watch the World Cup? Because we didn't lose due to batting, it was our bowling that was the culprit. How many bowlers did we have ranked in the top 10?

Despite Fakhar and Imam not living up to their billing, the batting unit put up good performances overall barring the India game. And even in that game we were going well until Babar got out and the rest started collapsing. We were on track for 300, just needed someone from the lower order to take responsibility.

Yes Babar himself didn't have a great tournament according to the high standards he's set but still managed to average above 40 scoring more than 300 runs. Rizwan and Abdullah Shafique made up for his failures. If we bowled better we could've won 2 more games and would've been in the semi final.

 

[mominsaigol]

Honest question, did you even watch the World Cup? Because we didn't lose due to batting, it was our bowling that was the culprit. How many bowlers did we have ranked in the top 10?

Despite Fakhar and Imam not living up to their billing, the batting unit put up good performances overall barring the India game. And even in that game we were going well until Babar got out and the rest started collapsing. We were on track for 300, just needed someone from the lower order to take responsibility.

Yes Babar himself didn't have a great tournament according to the high standards he's set but still managed to average above 40 scoring more than 300 runs. Rizwan and Abdullah Shafique made up for his failures. If we bowled better we could've won 2 more games and would've been in the semi final.

The bowling is the bigger culprit but that doesn't excuse the batting either, what you said is bogus, it seems you didn't watch the cup.

300 was par in the wc, and generally with the advent of odi now becoming an extended version of t20 cricket 300 is considered the norm.

We got bowled out for 244 against england and got bowled out for 270 against south africa, both totals being below par.

Even against nedtherldands despite winning our total was below par scoring 286.

Our batting was a massive issue and the commentators verbatim commented on it.

Thanks to Abdullah, Imam and Babar, Pakistan was the only team to not hit a 6 in the first 10 overs an average an economy of 3.8 to 4.2 whereas every other team had an eco of 4.5 to 5.4, India had an eco of 9 lol.

When Abdullah managed to hit a 6 in the first 10 overs in one game, the whole team started celebrating as if Pakistan had won the cup lol and that meme went viral on twitter.

Our eco in the first 30 overs was also significantly worse then every other batting team excluding minnows such as bangaldesh and Nedtherlands, ironically both afg and Sri Lanka had a higher eco.

Pakistan's biggest issue in the world cup was that they tried to play an anchor for the first 30 and look to chase 150 to 170 in the last 20 overs, this approach failed in almost every game chasing except for Bangladesh and Sri Lanka mainly cause Bangladesh scored 205 a below par total.

Against Sri Lanka it worked because 2 batsmen gelled, but the approach of chasing 150 to 170 in last 20 was going to fail 90% of the time which it did, because odi isn't t20, the fielders are up, the ball is okder and likely some wickets have fallen, Pakistan didn't understand chasing 150 to 170 when wickets are down + fielders are up + ball is older and bowlers have their rhythm is different from chasing 150 when you got a new ball + 10 wickets + fielders in the inner circle for first 6 overs.

Rizwan and Abdullah didn't make up for anything, Abdullah and rizwan ended up soft scoring minus that Sri lanka game, his snail pace 46 against Australia wouldn't have done anything if as @160KPH Wrongfully said that if every player had played like rizzu then we would have won against Australia.

We wouldn't have, the score was 364 in that game, Imam and Abdullah had outscored rizzu with a 64 and 70, problem was the pace that they played at, the rr was already over 10.

Rizzu could have scored a 100 and ot would have been enough, our fate was sealed as soon as Warner struck 164.

We got bowled out multiple times in the world cup, our eco in the first 30 overs was consistently the lowest in the tournament barring Bangladesh, even Nedtherlands and Afghanistan had it higher then us. The Sri Lanka game strategy of chasing 170 in last 20 will only work in odi if the batting is gelled, but in other games it wasn't.

 

[160KPH]

Rizwan and Abdullah didn't make up for anything, Abdullah and rizwan ended up soft scoring minus that Sri lanka game, his snail pace 46 against Australia wouldn't have done anything if as @160KPH Wrongfully said that if every player had played like rizzu then we would have won against Australia.

You’re mixing up formats again, I made that comment about the Australian Test series.

 

[daytrader]

The bowling is the bigger culprit but that doesn't excuse the batting either, what you said is bogus, it seems you didn't watch the cup.

300 was par in the wc, and generally with the advent of odi now becoming an extended version of t20 cricket 300 is considered the norm.

300 was par which world cup were you watching bud?

The average score was 257, the highest ever for a World Cup but way far fetched from your 300 figure. It's not a rap song that you can make up bogus facts. Gimme whatever you're smoking bro, I wanna be as creative as you

We got bowled out for 244 against england and got bowled out for 270 against south africa, both totals being below par.

Even against nedtherldands despite winning our total was below par scoring 286.

Our batting was a massive issue and the commentators verbatim commented on it.

Thanks to Abdullah, Imam and Babar, Pakistan was the only team to not hit a 6 in the first 10 overs an average an economy of 3.8 to 4.2 whereas every other team had an eco of 4.5 to 5.4, India had an eco of 9 lol.

We got bowled out and failed to complete 50 overs. That's the level of our batting yet you're complaining about not hitting sixes in the powerplay and about not going harder in the first half of the innings. Are you confused? Shouldn't we be trying to play out all overs first before criticizing strike rates. That's the first thing we should be addressing.

As I said earlier we needed 2 more wins. If we had played out all our overs against South Africa, we would've won that game. But according to your logic, Babar didn't go hard enough and is to blame. Salute to the death of logic.

Pakistan's biggest issue in the world cup was that they tried to play an anchor for the first 30 and look to chase 150 to 170 in the last 20 overs, this approach failed in almost every game chasing except for Bangladesh and Sri Lanka mainly cause Bangladesh scored 205 a below par total.

How can it be the biggest issue when we got bowled out in 5 out of 9 games? And guess what we only won 4 so there's a correlation. If we were playing out all overs and failed to get to the target then your argument would make sense that strike rate is the real issue. However that's not the case. We have a big problem in ODIs but T20 lovers will not acknowledge it because they just wanna see big sixes. The collapse is real.

because odi isn't t20, the fielders are up, the ball is okder and likely some wickets have fallen, Pakistan didn't understand chasing 150 to 170 when wickets are down + fielders are up + ball is older and bowlers have their rhythm is different from chasing 150 when you got a new ball + 10 wickets + fielders in the inner circle for first 6 overs.

Earlier you said ODIs are becoming an extended version of T20s and now this. Do you see what I mean by you contradicting yourself? I've been trying to get you to understand that they're 2 different formats yet you still compare T20 squads to ODI ones. At least you acknowledged it now

 

[mominsaigol]

You’re mixing up formats again, I made that comment about the Australian Test series.

No pur talk was about the world cup.

I said rizzu only performed during the Sri lankan game, and you said so his 46 and 49 against India don't count?

I responded with did he manage to win?

You said if everyone played JUST LIKE RIZZU they'd have won.

That argument is beyond silly when 2 players outscored him during that game.

Your blind if you think we would have chased 364 if every player played like rizzu lol, the target is 18 runs more then what was against Sri Lanka which is already the highest chase in wc history, and the bowling attack is 2000x superior to what Sri lanka had to offer.

Other players scoring rizzu like 40's would have done nothing in that game, the rr was reached 10 and climbed to 13 by the time rizzu departed.

In the wc our eco was consistently amongst the lowest dueing the first 30 overs.

 

[mominsaigol]

300 was par which world cup were you watching bud?

The average score was 257, the highest ever for a World Cup but way far fetched from your 300 figure. It's not a rap song that you can make up bogus facts. Gimme whatever you're smoking bro, I wanna be as creative as you




We got bowled out and failed to complete 50 overs. That's the level of our batting yet you're complaining about not hitting sixes in the powerplay and about not going harder in the first half of the innings. Are you confused? Shouldn't we be trying to play out all overs first before criticizing strike rates. That's the first thing we should be addressing.

As I said earlier we needed 2 more wins. If we had played out all our overs against South Africa, we would've won that game. But according to your logic, Babar didn't go hard enough and is to blame. Salute to the death of logic.



How can it be the biggest issue when we got bowled out in 5 out of 9 games? And guess what we only won 4 so there's a correlation. If we were playing out all overs and failed to get to the target then your argument would make sense that strike rate is the real issue. However that's not the case. We have a big problem in ODIs but T20 lovers will not acknowledge it because they just wanna see big sixes. The collapse is real.



Earlier you said ODIs are becoming an extended version of T20s and now this. Do you see what I mean by you contradicting yourself? I've been trying to get you to understand that they're 2 different formats yet you still compare T20 squads to ODI ones. At least you acknowledged it now

You're literally backtracking on your own premise?

First you claim rankings for batsmen are more accurate then team rankings and said if we had more bats in top 10 we would have won.

I explained we already had 3 bats in the top 10, and you said bowling was the issue not batting

Now I explained why batting was the issue and you're agreeing with me that it was because we got bowled out because our batting is pathetic? You just contradicted yourself .

 

[160KPH]

No pur talk was about the world cup.

I said rizzu only performed during the Sri lankan game, and you said so his 46 and 49 against India don't count?

I responded with did he manage to win?

You said if everyone played JUST LIKE RIZZU they'd have won.

That argument is beyond silly when 2 players outscored him during that game.

Your blind if you think we would have chased 364 if every player played like rizzu lol, the target is 18 runs more then what was against Sri Lanka which is already the highest chase in wc history, and the bowling attack is 2000x superior to what Sri lanka had to offer.

Other players scoring rizzu like 40's would have done nothing in that game, the rr was reached 10 and climbed to 13 by the time rizzu departed.

In the wc our eco was consistently amongst the lowest dueing the first 30 overs.

If all of the other batsmen had performed as good as Rizwan we did we would have won a match, it’s that simple.

I got the quote for you, you can click it and it will take you to thread. It was about Rizwan’s performance in the 2 Tests in Australia. I said if other batsmen performed as good as Rizwan we would have won a match.

I said rizzu only performed during the Sri lankan game, and you said so his 46 and 49 against India don't count?

I responded with did he manage to win?

No you said that he failed 5x in a row. A 46 and 49 is not a failure.

 

[mominsaigol]

I got the quote for you, you can click it and it will take you to thread. It was about Rizwan’s performance in the 2 Tests in Australia. I said if other batsmen performed as good as Rizwan we would have won the match.

No you said that he failed 5x in a row. A 46 and 49 is not a failure.

Bruh your first quote is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with me, it isnt even replying to me?

As for the 2nd part, 46 and 49 is a failure, if you examine it from perspectives.

Firstly cricket is a team game, so if the team didn't contribute into winning, then they failed, so rizzu defo failed in these 2 games along with the team.

Secondly against India, Babar and rizzu caused pur RR to decrease below 5, all the way to 4.5 despite the openers including imam( Supringly who struck at over 100) got the initial RR to 6.3.

Babar and rizwan were so clueless against spin that not only did they decrease the rr, once they got out, the lower order was forced to hit out since they had to increase the rr otherwise even if everyone performed we'd only reach 240-245?

So yes, their contributions were the sole cause of us failing batting wise, the middle to lower order was 100% going to collapse unless you have a butler and maxwell in the ranks lol.

As for Australia, this time it isnt his fault, I'll admit to that, he still failed aka the whole team failed, but the match was sealed as soon as warmer hit 164. No team in the planet is chasing 364 with Hazelwood, Cummings, Stark and zampa bowling lol

 

[160KPH]

Bruh your first quote is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with me, it isnt even replying to me?

As for the 2nd part, 46 and 49 is a failure, if you examine it from perspectives.

Firstly cricket is a team game, so if the team didn't contribute into winning, then they failed, so rizzu defo failed in these 2 games along with the team.

Secondly against India, Babar and rizzu caused pur RR to decrease below 5, all the way to 4.5 despite the openers including imam( Supringly who struck at over 100) got the initial RR to 6.3.

Babar and rizwan were so clueless against spin that not only did they decrease the rr, once they got out, the lower order was forced to hit out since they had to increase the rr otherwise even if everyone performed we'd only reach 240-245?

So yes, their contributions were the sole cause of us failing batting wise, the middle to lower order was 100% going to collapse unless you have a butler and maxwell in the ranks lol.

As for Australia, this time it isnt his fault, I'll admit to that, he still failed aka the whole team failed, but the match was sealed as soon as warmer hit 164. No team in the planet is chasing 364 with Hazelwood, Cummings, Stark and zampa bowling lol

What are you even talking about?

You just said that I said that if everyone performed like Rizwan we would have won the game against Australia. I was saying we would have won a Test match in the series against Australia not the World Cup match against Australia.

Please quote me where I said that if everyone had played like Rizwan in the WC match that we would have won against Australia. I was talking about the Test series, I provided you the quote of me talking about the Test series, but you’re still saying I was talking about the WC match.

 

[mominsaigol]

What are you even talking about?

You just said that I said that if everyone performed like Rizwan we would have won the game against Australia. I was saying we would have won a Test match in the series against Australia not the World Cup match against Australia.

Please quote me where I said that if everyone had played like Rizwan in the WC match that we would have won against Australia. I was talking about the Test series, I provided you the quote of me talking about the Test series, but you’re still saying I was talking about the WC match.

The og point is irrelevant, dont push and move forward.

You're claim in 49 not being a failure. Which perspective is it not a failure? Wanna watch the highlights?

 

[160KPH]

The og point is irrelevant, dont push and move forward.

You're claim in 49 not being a failure. Which perspective is it not a failure? Wanna watch the highlights?

We already had this discussion in the other thread.

The og point is irrelevant, dont push and move forward.

No the point is not irrelevant. You doubled down even after I mentioned I was talking about the Test series.

Rizwan and Abdullah didn't make up for anything, Abdullah and rizwan ended up soft scoring minus that Sri lanka game, his snail pace 46 against Australia wouldn't have done anything if as @160KPH Wrongfully said that if every player had played like rizzu then we would have won against Australia.

You’re mixing up formats again, I made that comment about the Australian Test series.

No pur talk was about the world cup.

It’s not a big deal but just acknowledge I wasn’t talking about the WC.

Also you called his 46 snail pace even though it was at a 115 SR. That’s not snail pace in ODI.

 

[mominsaigol]

We already had this discussion in the other thread.

No the point is not irrelevant. You doubled down even after I mentioned I was talking about the Test series.



It’s not a big deal but just acknowledge I wasn’t talking about the WC.

Also you called his 46 snail pace even though it was at a 115 SR. That’s not snail pace in ODI.

I'll address the test point since you're egotistical on it.

First off, Jamal scored 82, Agha scored 53, in test the entire team is not gonna score 88 lol. The problem wasn't the first innings, we had a lead, everyone playing like rizwan isn't possible lol in test, otherwise the scores would reach 400 lol

The problem was the 2nd innings. Pakistan including your precious rizwan collapsed for 115, making it an extremy easy test chase.

Let's say everyone played like rizwan and got to 400, Given how bad the 2nd innings was, Australia now have a target of 230 to chase? The way they batted during the 2nd innings they would have chased it down and won by 6 wickets.

So no everyone batting like rizwan wouldn't have won us the game, The 2nd innings was horrific, unless everyone reached a 500 score and Australia has 330 to chase which is difficult but doable, we were never in the run to win that game.

So no you are mistakenly incorrect.

Now before I move on to the 46, Please answer my 49 question you have been ignoring, How was it not a failure?

 

[160KPH]

I'll address the test point since you're egotistical on it.

You made up something that I said and when I corrected you and told you what I really said, you doubled down.

First off, Jamal scored 82, Agha scored 53, in test the entire team is not gonna score 88 lol. The problem wasn't the first innings, we had a lead, everyone playing like rizwan isn't possible lol in test, otherwise the scores would reach 400 lol

The problem was the 2nd innings. Pakistan including your precious rizwan collapsed for 115, making it an extremy easy test chase.

Let's say everyone played like rizwan and got to 400, Given how bad the 2nd innings was, Australia now have a target of 230 to chase? The way they batted during the 2nd innings they would have chased it down and won by 6 wickets.

So no everyone batting like rizwan wouldn't have won us the game, The 2nd innings was horrific, unless everyone reached a 500 score and Australia has 330 to chase which is difficult but doable, we were never in the run to win that game.

So no you are mistakenly incorrect.

You contradicted yourself like 10 times in this post.

Firstly, it was Rana who was trying to demean Rizwan’s Test performances in Australia. Overall our entire batting lineup averaged 21.48. Rizwan averaged 48.5. As I said, if we had a few other batsmen that batted as good as Rizwan we would have easily won, but no one was even close to his performances. The second closest was Shan Masood who averaged 30.

Sarfraz averaged 3.
Says averaged 15.
Saim averaged 16.
Shafique averaged 18.
Babar averaged 21.
Imam averaged 23.

If the team was even close to as good as Rizwan is in SENA conditions we would have easily won a Test match.

Now before I move on to the 46, Please answer my 49 question you have been ignoring, How was it not a failure?

We already had this discussion in the other thread spanning many many posts. I’ve already said everything I had to say about it. Nobody in the world considers 46 runs from your WK batsmen a failure.

 

[mominsaigol]

You made up something that I said and when I corrected you and told you what I really said, you doubled down.

You contradicted yourself like 10 times in this post.

Firstly, it was Rana who was trying to demean Rizwan’s Test performances in Australia. Overall our entire batting lineup averaged 21.48. Rizwan averaged 48.5. As I said, if we had a few other batsmen that batted as good as Rizwan we would have easily won, but no one was even close to his performances. The second closest was Shan Masood who averaged 30.

Sarfraz averaged 3.
Says averaged 15.
Saim averaged 16.
Shafique averaged 18.
Babar averaged 21.
Imam averaged 23.

If the team was even close to as good as Rizwan is in SENA conditions we would have easily won a Test match.

We already had this discussion in the other thread spanning many many posts. I’ve already said everything I had to say about it. Nobody in the world considers 46 runs from your WK batsmen a failure.

Why aren't you answering my question? Stop avoiding it. God its annoying.

Answer the 49 question right now. On which angle is it not a failure?

Bro sarfraz, Imam, Shafique etc, none of this matters. In the 3rd test the team got to 319 and bowled Australia put for 299.

Agha, Jamal and Rizwan scored and got it to a respectful total. The 2nd innings the whole team including rizzu collapsed.

YOUR EXACT WORDS I REMEMBER CLEARLY: If everyone played like rizwan.

I'm literally telling you the context on why we lost, his so called 48 avg is useless when the whole team got bowled out for 113 giving Australia the easiest 2nd innings chase, we had no way on winning that.

Now answer the 49 question, don't be a rat and use fancy double down words on me.

Rana is irrelevant to the conversation, this whole convo is between you and me, so bringing up what you claimed in him is irrelevant.

49, 46, 3rd test, already addressed it now answer the 49 question and explain the whole if everyone played like rizwan we would have won said test and why that 49 isn't a failure.

^^ After these are addressed then I'll answer 46. Don't make me repeat myself, their is no doubling down

 

[160KPH]

YOUR EXACT WORDS I REMEMBER CLEARLY: If everyone played like rizwan.

I'm literally telling you the context on why we lost, his so called 48 avg is useless when the whole team got bowled out for 113 giving Australia the easiest 2nd innings chase, we had no way on winning that.

Bro, now I think you literally have no idea what you’re talking about. If the whole team averaged 48, we would not be bowled out for 113… how do you not understand this? If our top 6 averaged 48, in an average innings we would score 288 + whatever the all rounders and bowlers score.

I truly have no clue what you’re talking about at this point. What I said is factually true, if we had even 2 other batsmen who were as good as Rizwan we would easily have won a match. But nobody on our team is even close to as good as Rizwan is in SENA.

Why aren't you answering my question? Stop avoiding it. God its annoying.

Because we already discussed all of this for pages and pages.

Imad Wasim ends retirement, set to play T20Is for Pakistan leading up to and in ICC T20I World Cup 2024 [Post Updated #116]

The Pakistan Cricket Board has been in touch with Imad Wasim to discuss the possibility of him reversing his retirement from international cricket. Imad's outstanding performance in PSL 9, where he scored 126 runs and took 12 wickets, played a crucial role in Islamabad United clinching their...

ppforum.pakpassion.net

Around page 3 and onwards is literally us discussing this for pages and pages and pages. You for some reason think that if a team does not win, then that means every single player failed.

Cricket is a team game and it requires good performances from multiple players for you to beat other top teams.

 

[mominsaigol]

@160KPH You know what since you're not going to answer and talk irrelevance ill debunk every thing you said.

Rizwan played the 2nd and 3rd test, so let's discuss.

In the 2nd test , Pakistan got bowled put giving Australia a lead, Shan and Abdullah got half centuries while rizwan didn't, meaning if EVERYONE PLAYED LIKE RIZZU, we would have less of a lead lol. In the 2nd innings masood, Babar and agha outscored rizwan by Miles but faiked to get over the line because the lead was too high, Pakistan were never chasing that.

As for averaging 48, Rizwan DID NOT AVG 48 in the 2nd innings. He faiked both 2nd innings., His avg getting inflated because he played 2 games rather then 3 and scored 88 in one first innings doesn't mean he played well.

In the 3rd test, the team got bowled put in the 2nd innings. Rizwan didn't do anything. We lost against Australia because we were consistently poor in the 2nd innings INCLUDING RIZWAN, our 1st innings wasn't the problem, nor was rizzu the top scorer in any of those games besides one game where he made 88 and jamal is close behind making 82.

You acted as if rizwan was sone unsung hero of thise test games and consistently played well while everyone else kept failing and everyone let him down, that's not what happened.

Ignoring my 49 question again? I'll restate it, When Babar and rizwan came out to bat we were 73 in the first 12 overs, When rizzu departed we were at 168 by the 33rd over, 21 overs bowled and less then 100 scored, and you have the audacity to tell me that 49 isn't a failed innings because its a decent no?

As for that 46, that 46 at 115 is useless if the rr was already way beyond it, Its still a failure although this time it isnt his fault unlike the 49 game. The score was too high.

Bro, now I think you literally have no idea what you’re talking about. If the whole team averaged 48, we would not be bowled out for 113… how do you not understand this? If our top 6 averaged 48, in an average innings we would score 288 + whatever the all rounders and bowlers score.

I truly have no clue what you’re talking about at this point. What I said is factually true, if we had even 2 other batsmen who were as good as Rizwan we would easily have won a match. But nobody on our team is even close to as good as Rizwan is in SENA.

Because we already discussed all of this for pages and pages.

Imad Wasim ends retirement, set to play T20Is for Pakistan leading up to and in ICC T20I World Cup 2024 [Post Updated #116]

The Pakistan Cricket Board has been in touch with Imad Wasim to discuss the possibility of him reversing his retirement from international cricket. Imad's outstanding performance in PSL 9, where he scored 126 runs and took 12 wickets, played a crucial role in Islamabad United clinching their...

ppforum.pakpassion.net

Around page 3 and onwards is literally us discussing this for pages and pages and pages. You for some reason think that if a team does not win, then that means every single player failed.

Cricket is a team game and it requires good performances from multiple players for you to beat other top teams.

 

[PakEngFan]

I got the quote for you, you can click it and it will take you to thread. It was about Rizwan’s performance in the 2 Tests in Australia. I said if other batsmen performed as good as Rizwan we would have won a match.

No you said that he failed 5x in a row. A 46 and 49 is not a failure.

I said the same about 46 and 49 as well for which he didn't have an answer.

 

[160KPH]

@160KPH You know what since you're not going to answer and talk irrelevance ill debunk every thing you said.

Rizwan played the 2nd and 3rd test, so let's discuss.

In the 2nd test , Pakistan got bowled put giving Australia a lead, Shan and Abdullah got half centuries while rizwan didn't, meaning if EVERYONE PLAYED LIKE RIZZU, we would have less of a lead lol. In the 2nd innings masood, Babar and agha outscored rizwan by Miles but faiked to get over the line because the lead was too high, Pakistan were never chasing that.

As for averaging 48, Rizwan DID NOT AVG 48 in the 2nd innings. He faiked both 2nd innings., His avg getting inflated because he played 2 games rather then 3 and scored 88 in one first innings doesn't mean he played well.

In the 3rd test, the team got bowled put in the 2nd innings. Rizwan didn't do anything. We lost against Australia because we were consistently poor in the 2nd innings INCLUDING RIZWAN, our 1st innings wasn't the problem, nor was rizzu the top scorer in any of those games besides one game where he made 88 and jamal is close behind making 82.

Dont be a rat, you acted as if rizwan was sone unsung hero of thise test games and consistently played well while everyone else kept failing and everyone let him down, that's not what happened.

Ignoring my 49 question again? I'll restate it, When Babar and rizwan came out to bat we were 73 in the first 12 overs, When rizzu departed we were at 168 by the 33rd over, 21 overs bowled and less then 100 scored, and you have the audacity to tell me that 49 isn't a failed innings because its a decent no?

As for that 46, that 46 at 115 is useless if the rr was already way beyond it, Its still a failure although this time it isnt his fault unlike the 49 game. The score was too high.

Bro.. now I understand why you don’t like stats. Do you know what an average is?

If Shan and Abdullah got half centuries, yet Shan only averaged 30 in the series and Abdullah and Shafique averaged 18 in the whole series that means that they played even worse in the other innings for their average to be that low.

I truly do not understand what you’re talking about at this point. To win a Test match, you have to score more runs than the other team across 5 days. Which by definition means your teams overall batting average is higher than the other teams. (Or bowling average is lower than the other teams, these two things are equal)

As a batting unit, we averaged 21. Australia as a batting unit averaged 38. Rizwan averaged 48.5. So if some other players had batted as good as Rizwan our teams batting averages would have been higher than 38 and we would have won some matches. What part of this are you not understanding?

Ignoring my 49 question again? I'll restate it, When Babar and rizwan came out to bat we were 73 in the first 12 overs, When rizzu departed we were at 168 by the 33rd over, 21 overs bowled and less then 100 scored, and you have the audacity to tell me that 49 isn't a failed innings because its a decent no?

As for that 46, that 46 at 115 is useless if the rr was already way beyond it, Its still a failure although this time it isnt his fault unlike the 49 game. The score was too high.

I’m not ignoring your question. I already told you that we already discussed all of this in the other thread. I do not wanna have the same discussion over and over again and my response has not changed. So if you want to see what I believe just look at the other thread I linked where we already discussed this for multiple pages.

Dont be a rat, you acted as if rizwan was sone unsung hero of thise test games and consistently played well while everyone else kept failing and everyone let him down, that's not what happened.

Also don’t call me a rat. You’re embarassing yourself right now. To win a Test match you need more runs than the other team. It doesn’t matter if these runs come in the 1st or 2nd innings, you just need more overall runs than the other team. Australia as a team averaged 38. Pakistan averaged 21. Rizwan averaged 48. If Pakistan as a team averaged closer to Rizwan’s performances we would have won some matches. Once again I do not understand which part of this you are not understanding.

To win a match you need more runs than the other team.

 

[mominsaigol]

Bro.. now I understand why you don’t like stats. Do you know what an average is?

If Shan and Abdullah got half centuries, yet Shan only averaged 30 in the series and Abdullah and Shafique averaged 18 in the whole series that means that they played even worse in the other innings for their average to be that low.

I truly do not understand what you’re talking about at this point. To win a Test match, you have to score more runs than the other team across 5 days. Which by definition means your teams overall batting average is higher than the other teams. (Or bowling average is lower than the other teams, these two things are equal)

As a batting unit, we averaged 21. Australia as a batting unit averaged 38. Rizwan averaged 48.5. So if some other players had batted as good as Rizwan our teams batting averages would have been higher than 38 and we would have won some matches. What part of this are you not understanding?

I’m not ignoring your question. I already told you that we already discussed all of this in the other thread. I do not wanna have the same discussion over and over again and my response has not changed. So if you want to see what I believe just look at the other thread I linked where we already discussed this for multiple pages.

Also don’t call me a rat. You’re embarassing yourself right now. To win a Test match you need more runs than the other team. It doesn’t matter if these runs come in the 1st or 2nd innings, you just need more overall runs than the other team. Australia as a team averaged 38. Pakistan averaged 21. Rizwan averaged 48. If Pakistan as a team averaged closer to Rizwan’s performances we would have won some matches. Once again I do not understand which part of this you are not understanding.

To win a match you need more runs than the other team.

You realise your arguments aren't helping you by means, you're just proving why looking at stats with negative context is factually flawed amd completly irrelevant.

This question was never answered in other threads, I searched and searched which is my fundamental reason for claiming rat, sorry but I asked 4x and no answer was given but seemingly you had no issues giving other answers.

I am not embrassing myself, your opinions on me are as irrelevant as rizwan's 48 without context. Rizwan had a higher avg because he played less games then the others, everyone's avg got diluted as a result, whereas rizwan had one 88 and the rest were 30 to 40 scores. Its such a bad argument that it doesn't deserve to be addressed.

Look at everyone's avg across 2 games starting from 2nd and 3rd test and look where they stand in comparison. Loony toon logic

 

[160KPH]

Look at everyone's avg across 2 games starting from 2nd and 3rd test and look where they stand in comparison. Loony toon logic

Rizwan is still by far the highest amongst the batsmen. The only one who is even close then is Aamer Jamal at 44.33 because he had a not out.

Looking at only the 2nd and 3rd matches:
Shan averaged 37
Agha averaged 27.
Babar averaged 22.
Shafique averaged 16.
Saim averaged 16.
Shaheen Shah averaged 10.5 which is higher than Saud Shakeel who averaged 10.

Saim, Shaheen, and Imam all played only 1 match, the rest played both of the last 2.

It seems like the concept of average is one you do not understand or it is bothering you. So how about I make it even easier: If a few other batsmen had scored close to 193 runs like Rizwan did in the last 2 matches, we would have either one or both of the games.

You realise your arguments aren't helping you by means, you're just proving why looking at stats with negative context is factually flawed amd completly irrelevant.

This question was never answered in other threads, I searched and searched which is my fundamental reason for claiming rat, sorry but I asked 4x and no answer was given but seemingly you had no issues giving other answers.

I am not embrassing myself, your opinions on me are as irrelevant as rizwan's 48 without context. Rizwan had a higher avg because he played less games then the others, everyone's avg got diluted as a result, whereas rizwan had one 88 and the rest were 30 to 40 scores. Its such a bad argument that it doesn't deserve to be addressed.

Look at everyone's avg across 2 games starting from 2nd and 3rd test and look where they stand in comparison. Loony toon logic

Australia as a team averaged 31.53 as a batting lineup in the last 2 matches.

Not even a single Australian player scored as many runs in the last 2 matches as Rizwan scored in the last 2 matches.

In the last 2 matches,
Rizwan scored 193 runs
Marsh scored 189
Warner 135
Smith 118
Carey 95
Khawaja 89


So like I have said multiple times now, I have no clue which part of this you are not understanding. Rizwan scored more runs in the 2 matches he played than any Australian player did, let alone any Pakistani player. If our other batsmen were as good as Rizwan in Australia, we would have easily won one match, but most likely won both matches.

 

[mominsaigol]

Rizwan is still by far the highest amongst the batsmen. The only one who is even close then is Aamer Jamal at 44.33 because he had a not out.

Looking at only the 2nd and 3rd matches:
Shan averaged 37
Agha averaged 27.
Babar averaged 22.
Shafique averaged 16.
Saim averaged 16.
Shaheen Shah averaged 10.5 which is higher than Saud Shakeel who averaged 10.

Saim, Shaheen, and Imam all played only 1 match, the rest played both of the last 2.

It seems like the concept of average is one you do not understand or it is bothering you. So how about I make it even easier: If a few other batsmen had scored close to 193 runs like Rizwan did in the last 2 matches, we would have either one or both of the games.

Australia as a team averaged 31.53 as a batting lineup in the last 2 matches.

Not even a single Australian player scored as many runs in the last 2 matches as Rizwan scored in the last 2 matches.

In the last 2 matches,
Rizwan scored 193 runs
Marsh scored 189
Warner 135
Smith 118
Carey 95
Khawaja 89


So like I have said multiple times now, I have no clue which part of this you are not understanding. Rizwan scored more runs in the 2 matches he played than any Australian player did, let alone any Pakistani player. If our other batsmen were as good as Rizwan in Australia, we would have easily won one match, but most likely won both matches.

Did rizwan do anything in the 2nd innings where everyone was universally poor? Did other batsmen not outperform him in the first innings?

Loony toon logic

 

[160KPH]

Did rizwan do anything in the 2nd innings where everyone was universally poor? Did other batsmen not outperform him in the first innings?

Loony toon logic

Do you not know what an average is? Everything you are saying right now makes it seem as if you do not know what the definition of an average is.

Once again Rizwan scored the most runs out of any Pakistani or Australian player in the last 2 matches. If our other batsmen were nearly as good we would have easily scored more runs than the other team.

 

[160KPH]

Did rizwan do anything in the 2nd innings where everyone was universally poor? Did other batsmen not outperform him in the first innings?

Loony toon logic

Also do not double down. Just admit you were wrong. You said this:

Rizwan had a higher avg because he played less games then the others, everyone's avg got diluted as a result, whereas rizwan had one 88 and the rest were 30 to 40 scores. Its such a bad argument that it doesn't deserve to be addressed.

Look at everyone's avg across 2 games starting from 2nd and 3rd test and look where they stand in comparison. Loony toon logic

And then when I actually did look at everyone's average across the last 2 games and how many runs they scored, Rizwan still had the highest average of any Pakistani player and he still scored more runs than any Pakistan or Australian player in the last 2 matches.

 

[mominsaigol]

Do you not know what an average is? Everything you are saying right now makes it seem as if you do not know what the definition of an average is.

Once again Rizwan scored the most runs out of any Pakistani or Australian player in the last 2 matches. If our other batsmen were nearly as good we would have easily scored more runs than the other team.

Do you not know what context Is?

You're going into virtual hypothetical on scenarios, it's such a terrible argument.

Rizwan overall avg doesn't mean he's consistently transmitting the same output across both innings.

He'd averaging significantly higher in the first innings but significantly lower in the 2nd innings, where Australia chased it casually aka 130/2.

You have no freaking clue on how the scenario would have played out if everyone averaged 48, as Australia could have just averaged significantly higher and chased it altogether. Its a hypothetical argument you're arguing.

 

[mominsaigol]

Also do not double down. Just admit you were wrong. You said this:

And then when I actually did look at everyone's average across the last 2 games and how many runs they scored, Rizwan still had the highest average of any Pakistani player and he still scored more runs than any Pakistan or Australian player in the last 2 matches.

Naw, you're the one hiding the full picture.

Marsh averaged 86 across the entire series, Warner averaged nearly 50.

Rizwan scored more because in the final test 2nd innings Australia just had to chase 130 due to Pakistan's batting collapse, theirbwere less runs to chase and less opportunities for batsmen to score.

So no, the whole runs logic still doesn't apply. Nice try though, you can't even present your logic properly.

 

[160KPH]

Do you not know what context Is?

You're going into virtual hypothetical on scenarios, it's such a terrible argument.

Rizwan overall avg doesn't mean he's consistently transmitting the same output across both innings.

He'd averaging significantly higher in the first innings but significantly lower in the 2nd innings, where Australia chased it casually aka 130/2.

You have no freaking clue on how the scenario would have played out if everyone averaged 48, as Australia could have just averaged significantly higher and chased it altogether. Its a hypothetical argument you're arguing.

Then whole thing is a hypothetical… that was the whole point.

IF our other batsmen played nearly as good as Rizwan we would have had a higher chance of winning a Test match.

You have no freaking clue on how the scenario would have played out if everyone averaged 48, as Australia could have just averaged significantly higher and chased it altogether. Its a hypothetical argument you're arguing.

You’ve completely shifted and moved around the argument. I don’t know why you’re so committed to this. Just admit that Rizwan played good in Australia.

The whole point was that Rizwan did his part in the Australian Test series. If other players had done their parts, we would have had a higher chance of winning one of the matches. We didn’t fail in the Australia Test series because of Rizwan. We failed because of the other batsmen like Saud, Abdullah, Babar, Imam, and Saim. I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this.

 

[mominsaigol]

Then whole thing is a hypothetical… that was the whole point.

IF our other batsmen played nearly as good as Rizwan we would have had a higher chance of winning a Test match.

You’ve completely shifted and moved around the argument. I don’t know why you’re so committed to this. Just admit that Rizwan played good in Australia.

The whole point was that Rizwan did his part in the Australian Test series. If other players had done their parts, we would have had a higher chance of winning one of the matches. We didn’t fail in the Australia Test series because of Rizwan. We failed because of the other batsmen like Saud, Abdullah, Babar, Imam, and Saim. I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this.

This is so stupid.

Hey if any other Australian batsmen had played almost as good as Marsh everyone would be averaging 86, scoring 800 runs per innings and would outscore everyone in Pakistan batting at an avg of 48. Stupid logic.

I'm saying your wrong rizwan is 100% included in said list of batsmen who failed. All these batsmen except for Saud contributed in some way to get to a respectable total in the first innings and on most occasions had a target relative to Australia innthen1st innings, HOWEVER all batsmen including rizwan universally failed in the 2nd innings causing Australia to have an easier time.

Rizwan is in said list of failures, not an exclusion. The one who's dancing around 24/7 is you, not answering any quesrion, hiding behind another thread for where the answer inseek doesn't even exist.

 

[160KPH]

Naw, you're the one hiding the full picture.

Marsh averaged 86 across the entire series, Warner averaged nearly 50.

Rizwan scored more because in the final test 2nd innings Australia just had to chase 130 due to Pakistan's batting collapse, theirbwere less runs to chase and less opportunities for batsmen to score.

So no, the whole runs logic still doesn't apply. Nice try though, you can't even present your logic properly.

Bro you don’t even know what an average is.

This is what you told me:

Rizwan had a higher avg because he played less games then the others, everyone's avg got diluted as a result, whereas rizwan had one 88 and the rest were 30 to 40 scores. Its such a bad argument that it doesn't deserve to be addressed.

And then I showed you that Rizwan had the highest average out of all the Pakistani players even if you just look at the last 2 matches.

The whole point was that you and Rana were demeaning Rizwan’s Test performances in Australia because we did not win. But the whole point is that if our other batsmen played as good as our WK Batsmen Rizwan we would have had a much higher chance and would have likely one a Test match.

Naw, you're the one hiding the full picture.

Marsh averaged 86 across the entire series, Warner averaged nearly 50.

Rizwan scored more because in the final test 2nd innings Australia just had to chase 130 due to Pakistan's batting collapse, theirbwere less runs to chase and less opportunities for batsmen to score.

So no, the whole runs logic still doesn't apply. Nice try though, you can't even present your logic properly.

I also tried to give you the average of the Australian batting side during the series and even the last 2 matches which accounts for things like not outs. But you were not understanding what an average is so I tried to make it easier for you by just listing the runs.


But once again, it’s literally so simple, you’re just arguing just to argue. If our other batsmen had played like our best batsmen of the entire series, Rizwan, then we would have had a higher chance of winning a match.

Rizwan scored more runs than any other Pakistani player on the whole tour even though Rizwan played only 2 matches and most of our other batsmen played 3.

 

[mominsaigol]

Bro you don’t even know what an average is.

This is what you told me:

And then I showed you that Rizwan had the highest average out of all the Pakistani players even if you just look at the last 2 matches.

The whole point was that you and Rana were demeaning Rizwan’s Test performances in Australia because we did not win. But the whole point is that if our other batsmen played as good as our WK Batsmen Rizwan we would have had a much higher chance and would have likely one a Test match.

I also tried to give you the average of the Australian batting side during the series and even the last 2 matches which accounts for things like not outs. But you were not understanding what an average is so I tried to make it easier for you by just listing the runs.


But once again, it’s literally so simple, you’re just arguing just to argue. If our other batsmen had played like our best batsmen of the entire series, Rizwan, then we would have had a higher chance of winning a match.

Rizwan scored more runs than any other Pakistani player on the whole tour even though Rizwan played only 2 matches and most of our other batsmen played 3.

"Your just arguing just to argue"

Irony died a 1000 deaths.

 

[160KPH]

This is so stupid.

Hey if any other Australian batsmen had played almost as good as Marsh everyone would be averaging 86, scoring 800 runs per innings and would outscore everyone in Pakistan batting at an avg of 48. Stupid logic.

It’s your logic which is unbelievably stupid and you don’t even understand what an average is.

The whole argument in the other thread began because you and Rana were demeaning Rizwan’s performances because we did not win a Test match in Australia. When the whole time if players like Saud, Abdullah, Imam, Babar, Shan, and Saim had batted even close to as good as Rizwan did we could have easily won a match.

You guys were basically blaming our failures on our best performing batsmen because you don’t like him. That was the whole point of the argument and the whole point of the hypothetical.

 

[160KPH]

"Your just arguing just to argue"

Irony died a 1000 deaths.

Bro, I basically stated that if our other batsmen had performed as good as our best performing batsmen on the whole series, Rizwan, we would have had a higher chance of winning and most likely could have won a match.


And somehow you’ve managed to disagree with such a basic statement.

 

[mominsaigol]

It’s your logic which is unbelievably stupid and you don’t even understand what an average is.

The whole argument in the other thread began because you and Rana were demeaning Rizwan’s performances because we did not win a Test match in Australia. When the whole time if players like Saud, Abdullah, Imam, Babar, Shan, and Saim had batted even close to as good as Rizwan did we could have easily won a match.

You guys were basically blaming our failures on our best performing batsmen because you don’t like him. That was the whole point of the argument and the whole point of the hypothetical.

And? What if every Australian batsmen batted as good as Marsh and Warner? Stupid logic.

Also as I said, rana and I are not a collective entity, I did not do anything to demean rizwan and solely blame anything on him.

I only solely blamed him and Babar for India game BATTING WISE only,

But don't exclude rizwan, we lost because he alongside everyone consistentlynfaikedndurong 2nd innings making it easy for Australia to bowl us out or chase.

I'd give him credit if he actually did something in an innings where everyone else failed even if it was a losing cause.

We could have done wonders with every batsmen being on cloud 9 in the first innings and consistently failed in the 2nd innings and we wouldn't have beaten Australia, they'd still chase it down.

 

[mominsaigol]

Bro, I basically stated that if our other batsmen had performed as good as our best performing batsmen on the whole series, Rizwan, we would have had a higher chance of winning and most likely could have won a match.


And somehow you’ve managed to disagree with such a basic statement.

How do you perform as Good as a best performing batsmen? What?

 

[160KPH]

And? What if every Australian batsmen batted as good as Marsh and Warner? Stupid logic.

Also as I said, rana and I are not a collective entity, I did not do anything to demean rizwan and solely blame anything on him.

I only solely blamed him and Babar for India game BATTING WISE only,

But don't exclude rizwan, we lost because he alongside everyone consistentlynfaikedndurong 2nd innings making it easy for Australia to bowl us out or chase.

I'd give him credit if he actually did something in an innings where everyone else failed even if it was a losing cause.

We could have done wonders with every batsmen being on cloud 9 in the first innings and consistently failed in the 2nd innings and we wouldn't have beaten Australia, they'd still chase it down.

Bro thank you. That was literally the whole point man. I think you’re finally understanding what I was trying to say.

The argument began because people in that thread were trying to blame our failure in Australia on our best performing batsmen. My whole point was why would you blame our best performing batsmen for our loss in that series when the other players were the ones who played badly. Our batsmen like Saud, Abdullah, Babar, Imam, Saim, and Shan are the ones who failed us.

 

[160KPH]

How do you perform as Good as a best performing batsmen? What?

By scoring as many runs as him? What do you mean?

 

[mominsaigol]

Bro thank you. That was literally the whole point man. I think you’re finally understanding what I was trying to say.

The argument began because people in that thread were trying to blame our failure in Australia on our best performing batsmen. My whole point was why would you blame our best performing batsmen for our loss in that series when the other players were the ones who played badly. Our batsmen like Saud, Abdullah, Babar, Imam, Saim, and Shan are the ones who failed us.

So? How is that relevant to me? Or anything I said? I already told you I am not a collective entity? I never made any comments in rizzu in Australian Test series being a sole cause?

I only claimed sole cause for batting against India him and Babar batting wise?

Why are you acting like I claimed any of it?

 

[mominsaigol]

By scoring as many runs as him? What do you mean?

You think everyone in a line up will collectively score 88 runs in a single test innings? Are you out of your mind?

 

[160KPH]

So? How is that relevant to me? Or anything I said? I already told you I am not a collective entity? I never made any comments in rizzu in Australian Test series being a sole cause?

I only claimed sole cause for batting against India him and Babar batting wise?

Why are you acting like I claimed any of it?

Because you quoted me!

You’re the one who misquoted me today and began the whole discussion about what I said to a different poster.

You think everyone in a line up will collectively score 88 runs in a single test innings? Are you out of your mind?

Bro do you not understand what a hypothetical is? The whole point was that imagine if Mitchell Marsh averaged 88 and then Australia still lost the series. Is Mitchell Marsh gonna be the player you blame for the loss? Obviously not.

 

[mominsaigol]

Because you quoted me!

You’re the one who misquoted me today and began the whole discussion about what I said to a different poster.

Bro do you not understand what a hypothetical is? The whole point was that imagine if Mitchell Marsh averaged 88 and then Australia still lost the series. Is Mitchell Marsh gonna be the player you blame for the loss? Obviously not.

When did I blame anyone?

I quoted you on you claiming if people had played like rizwan they would have beaten Australia?

When did I say you're wrong and rizwan is 100% to blame.

I didn't blame any player regarding to Australia.

Only time I've solely blamed rizwan is asia cup, otherwise I collectively blamed him and Babar against India.

For 2021 sf against aus I blamed the bowlers more then babar?

For 2022 wc I blamed babar and rizwan for failing but not them solely?

When I have ever solely blamed them besides 2022 asia cup and India game?

 

[160KPH]

When did I blame anyone?

I quoted you on you claiming if people had played like rizwan they would have beaten Australia?

When did I say you're wrong and rizwan is 100% to blame.

I didn't blame any player regarding to Australia.

Only time I've solely blamed rizwan is asia cup, otherwise I collectively blamed him and Babar against India.

For 2021 sf against aus I blamed the bowlers more then babar?

For 2022 wc I blamed babar and rizwan for failing but not them solely?

When I have ever solely blamed them besides 2022 asia cup and India game?

Bro you quoted my argument which was against a DIFFERENT poster who was blaming our failures in the Australian Test series on Rizwan and pretending like he didn’t perform well. That was the whole point of the hypothetical I made. Now you’re taking my hypothetical out of context.

If you’re not blaming our Australian Test series failures on Rizwan then the argument was never even directed towards you and neither was the hypothetical.

 

[daytrader]

You're literally backtracking on your own premise?

First you claim rankings for batsmen are more accurate then team rankings and said if we had more bats in top 10 we would have won.

I explained we already had 3 bats in the top 10, and you said bowling was the issue not batting

Now I explained why batting was the issue and you're agreeing with me that it was because we got bowled out because our batting is pathetic? You just contradicted yourself .

I'm certainly not , you're misquoting me and twisting the argument to suit your agenda. Again you're in a corner so you don't know what to do.

I literally said if we had more 'players' in the top 10 not more 'bats'.

You explained the batting issue, yes please take credit for this obvious as well. We've been discussing these issues for a long time. However your solution was we need to go harder in the PP and the first half of the innings. Mine has always been that we need to play out overs first. This is the disagreement and nothing contradicting in what I said.

 

[pakistani pride]

Let Usman and Saim open vs NZ.

 

[topspin]

Let Usman and Saim open vs NZ.

That's exactly the point, if you're not selfish, experiment with other openers against C/D string and minnow bowling attacks rather than making it about yourself and Rizwan.

 

[Rana]

Let Usman and Saim open vs NZ.

According to Rizwan, you will have to get this proposal past the awaam who loves his and Babar’s jodi

 

[mominsaigol]

That's exactly the point, if you're not selfish, experiment with other openers against C/D string and minnow bowling attacks rather than making it about yourself and Rizwan.

Reason I suggested usman at 3 or 4 is because ik babar won't move.

I'd still back Falhar + Saim + Usman to be our 1,2 and 3

 

[mominsaigol]

I'm certainly not , you're misquoting me and twisting the argument to suit your agenda. Again you're in a corner so you don't know what to do.

I literally said if we had more 'players' in the top 10 not more 'bats'.

You explained the batting issue, yes please take credit for this obvious as well. We've been discussing these issues for a long time. However your solution was we need to go harder in the PP and the first half of the innings. Mine has always been that we need to play out overs first. This is the disagreement and nothing contradicting in what I said.

And I'm asking how many? Shaheen was ranked no 1 prior to Asia cup and still ranked top in 5 during the wc, Rauf was ranked 10. They got exposed badly and fell off,

Theirs a misconception about shaheen, Shaheen is a good new ball bowler when he utilises his unplayable inswing but he's a terrible middle overs and death over bowler, constantly pitching it short or just have predictable lines.

Pakistan was the only team to HAVE 5 players in the top 10 and was ranked no 1 yet they failed. The one who's crying in a corner is you cause I've exposed how faulty the rankings were and rather then just admitting you're wrong, you're desperately trying to support a viewpoint you yourself don't believe in.

Mate the whole we need to play out overs backfired in literally every game besides Bangladesh, Nedtherlands and Sri Lanka? All 3 of these teams are minnows?

Look at teams batting plan and look at Pakistan's plan in the cup.

Pakistan's odi plan: Survive for 30 overs and accumulate and chase 170 to 180 In the final 20, even though players are up, wickets are down and ball is older and more spin friendly lol.

England's odi plan: Outbat the opposition by scoring a monster 400 or try to bat with that mindset.

Sa odi plan: Same as England's.

Australia's odi plan: Analyse each team and play accordingly to their strengths and weaknesses, against India it was to chase to avoid kohli's 90+ avg while chasing and rohits 9 rr start pressure against Pakistan it was to just putbat from get go cause we suck at chasing.

India's odi plan: Have rohit provide a 9 rr start followed by kohli and sheryas accumulating at 6 to 7 rr and have sky/pandya provide a monster finish.

^^ Your play out the overs is so outdated, no wonder we're a medicore cricket nation with people like you having the same mindset of Misbah being a legend cause he employed the exact same strategies

 

[shaz619]

Babar Azam is sharif and the most selfless batsman with a beautiful strike rate

 

[BouncerGuy]

Babar is playing for Pakistan which is why he gets noticed for his stat-padding and strike rate, had he been playing for any other country, people would have never talked about this thing. Pakistan has a culture and system built in the minds of both fans and players to play like this and it is not going to change anytime soon.

 

[mominsaigol]

Babar is playing for Pakistan which is why he gets noticed for his stat-padding and strike rate, had he been playing for any other country, people would have never talked about this thing. Pakistan has a culture and system built in the minds of both fans and players to play like this and it is not going to change anytime soon.

He wouldn't even be in other teams lol.

Sena would keep him,

Only person he can replace in SA is bavuma, but bavuma is a gun captain so he's not easy to shove aside.

England players, he's replacing none of em in 2019 and currently even though England are down and out, he doesn't fit their bazzballing culture, Root was a mistake, he got discarded for Alex Hales and when he came back England regretted it.

Australia lol

India: Double Lol.

Nz: Another lol.

Sri lanka, Bamgaldesh and Afghanistan he makes it in easily, but no one notices those teams besides Afghanistan, and sure he'd get praised by pakistani people if he was playing in Afghanistan since he'd be good enough for those standards and Pakistan's joke bowling unit would struggle, unless imad wasim, Naseem shah and Amir are bowling, then babar turns into a bunny

 

[BouncerGuy]

Babar Azam is the only player to score more than 500 runs twice in the PSL with a strike rate of over 140 and Fakhar Zaman is the only player to score 500+ runs in the PSL with a strike rate of over 150.

People will say that it is just PSL but Babar is not some ordinary player.

 

[aukhan]

Babar Azam is the only player to score more than 500 runs twice in the PSL with a strike rate of over 140 and Fakhar Zaman is the only player to score 500+ runs in the PSL with a strike rate of over 150.

People will say that it is just PSL but Babar is not some ordinary player.

He is a good consistent low-impact run scorer. He is not Virat Kohli as his die hard fan club portrays him to be. The only reason he gets all the abuse is because a certain desperate indian obsessed section overrate him and start comparing and degrading players that he can never match, even on his best days.

A good looking cover drive or straight drive can not make him better than Kohli. He is a match loser compared to kohli.

 

[Ahmed216]

Babar is a national asset.
Is there a stat for Pakistan's average PP score before Babar and Rizwan opening combination?

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Honestly speaking I have seen a lot of improvement in his strike rate in the recent PSL. If he continues to play with such confidence I am sure he will be one of the highest scorers in the upcoming World Cup with a strike rate of 140+.

 

[Rana]

Honestly speaking I have seen a lot of improvement in his strike rate in the recent PSL. If he continues to play with such confidence I am sure he will be one of the highest scorers in the upcoming World Cup with a strike rate of 140+.

Check his sr in Karachi during the latter stages. He’s fooled a lot of people with performances at Lahore and Pindi

 

[mominsaigol]

Honestly speaking I have seen a lot of improvement in his strike rate in the recent PSL. If he continues to play with such confidence I am sure he will be one of the highest scorers in the upcoming World Cup with a strike rate of 140+.

Are you sure? Please think again before he becomes another Canada E Azam

 

[CerebralPatriot]

Babar is a national asset.
Is there a stat for Pakistan's average PP score before Babar and Rizwan opening combination?

And Rizwan is a national hero for his drama before playing Australia in 2021

 

[FearlessRoar]

Former Pakistan captain Misbah-ul-Haq has offered his perspective on the discussions surrounding current skipper Babar Azam's performance in T20 cricket during an interview with an Indian sports channel:

"We saw, he [Babar] improved his strike rate against Ireland. Hopefully, he will bat like that when the team requires that sort of an innings from him. If an anchor role is required, then anchor it is. But you have to be potentially ready to play at 160-170 or even a strike rate of 200 if the team needs it. It will be an important thing for Babar to not bat at 130-140 strike rate if the team is chasing 200."

 

[mominsaigol]

Former Pakistan captain Misbah-ul-Haq has offered his perspective on the discussions surrounding current skipper Babar Azam's performance in T20 cricket during an interview with an Indian sports channel:

"We saw, he [Babar] improved his strike rate against Ireland. Hopefully, he will bat like that when the team requires that sort of an innings from him. If an anchor role is required, then anchor it is. But you have to be potentially ready to play at 160-170 or even a strike rate of 200 if the team needs it. It will be an important thing for Babar to not bat at 130-140 strike rate if the team is chasing 200."

Wow misbah, I didn't know its important to not bat at 130 sr while chasing 200.

Kamal advice bro, what's the next advice? To avoid getting hit for a six in bowling, make you sure you bowl the proper areas?

 

[shaz619]

You’re not selfish I agree, that’s a trait more suited to normal human beings. Everybody can be a bit selfish sometimes.

 

[shaz619]

Former Pakistan captain Misbah-ul-Haq has offered his perspective on the discussions surrounding current skipper Babar Azam's performance in T20 cricket during an interview with an Indian sports channel:

"We saw, he [Babar] improved his strike rate against Ireland. Hopefully, he will bat like that when the team requires that sort of an innings from him. If an anchor role is required, then anchor it is. But you have to be potentially ready to play at 160-170 or even a strike rate of 200 if the team needs it. It will be an important thing for Babar to not bat at 130-140 strike rate if the team is chasing 200."

Misbah the captain, Misbah the coach and Misbah the armchair expert are all different people.

The definition for coward and hypocrite in the updated 2024 dictionary is actually just one word; Misbah-Ul-Haq

 

[topspin]

Misbah the captain, Misbah the coach and Misbah the armchair expert are all different people.

The definition for coward and hypocrite in the updated 2024 dictionary is actually just one word; Misbah-Ul-Haq

Precisely because what he preaches is contrary to his ultra defensive cricketing philosophy.

 

[RidiculousMan]

Former Pakistan captain Misbah-ul-Haq has offered his perspective on the discussions surrounding current skipper Babar Azam's performance in T20 cricket during an interview with an Indian sports channel:

"We saw, he [Babar] improved his strike rate against Ireland. Hopefully, he will bat like that when the team requires that sort of an innings from him. If an anchor role is required, then anchor it is. But you have to be potentially ready to play at 160-170 or even a strike rate of 200 if the team needs it. It will be an important thing for Babar to not bat at 130-140 strike rate if the team is chasing 200."

Misbah always with sane takes and useful insights. No wonder players respect and listen to his advice

 

[Master Blaster]

If he had opted to remain selfish, he would have scored atleast 2 100s with eyes wide closed against the Irish.
But he chose to play for his strike rate instead of his average.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Add another to the tally

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892241327393222821

 

[giri26]

Pakistan't win in SA and Australia masked the SR of Babar. Even in the series against SA which Pakistan won 3-0, Babar's SR in the 3 games were 60, 76 and 73, really poor by any standards. He followed that up with SR's of 43, 121 and 85. The last 2 SR's were for the scores 23 and 29. He just cannot bat aggressively and maintain good SR's. If he has to pass 50 it seems like it will be at a SR of 70-85. This means that there is an increased pressure on the rest of the batters to make up the difference. Pakistan are never going win many games with this approach. To be frank with Saim missing at the top relying on just Fakhar means that the batting is going to put up sub-par totals more often than not. Considering how poor the fast bowers have been the mediocre batting line up is under pressure to put up big totals and Babar scoring at snails pace isn't helping. I believe it is better for Babar to slog and get out for a 20 ball 30 than to get a 50 for the sake of Pakistan cricket. If he does score 50+ it just helps the opposition and they wouldn't mind it.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

At this point, its either you are selfish or simply incompetent.

Both ideas are scary for future of Pakistan cricket.

 

[psyoptica]

At this point, its either you are selfish or simply incompetent.

Both ideas are scary for future of Pakistan cricket.

I think it’s a bit of both. He has to be selfish otherwise he won’t have stats help him get selected but he’s also a severely limited batsman with serious technical flaws.

I don’t think Babar realizes how flawed he is and in his mind, he probably chalks up his lack of performance to bad form. If you compare his batting from 3 years ago to now, he hasn’t improved one bit but in fact regressed. He doesn’t have any fire or drive to improve his power hitting game and just wants to milk the national team as long as he can. His needs to be dropped for a long period and told to go back to domestic cricket. Enough of the bs propaganda of his fans “but we don’t have better options” every time he fails to perform.

 

[kingusama92]

It's easier to justify a batsman who hits and gets out compared to someone being as selfish as he was today.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Last 2 years strike rate against main teams (Min 750 runs) . Babar strike rate is somewhere at the bottom just above SHanto and Labu.

 

[giri26]

Klassen has been batting on a different planet. Average of 57 at a SR of 141 is unbelievable. Nightmare for any bowling attack. Head and Rohit haven't been too shabby either striking at 120+ with high average.

 

[topspin]

Selfish and the most overrated player of all-time. You were in the ascendency under Mickey Arthur and peaked during the 2019 World Cup. That all changed when Misbah become your new mentor. Looks like he taught you well.

 

[W63L35]

Babar vs other 4 batsmen today....

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

Babar vs other 4 batsmen today....

View attachment 151021

It wasn't Babar's best but poor guy is simply targeted because he is Babar. In ODIs there is no argument against Babar, he is arguably ODI GOAT, just missing longevity. Compare the stats of Sachin vs Babar at a similar age and you will see.

 

[mominsaigol]

It wasn't Babar's best but poor guy is simply targeted because he is Babar. In ODIs there is no argument against Babar, he is arguably ODI GOAT, just missing longevity. Compare the stats of Sachin vs Babar at a similar age and you will see.

Sachin played in the one ball era. Babar plays in the 2 new ball era.

By this logic Kl Rahul is better then Sachin as an odi batter.

 

[RizwanT20Champ]

Sachin played in the one ball era. Babar plays in the 2 new ball era.

By this logic Kl Rahul is better then Sachin as an odi batter.

Let's forget balls for a minute. Just watching Babar and Sachin bat in ODIs, Babar gives you a sense of calm that you never quite had with Sachin. Sachin is ahead for now due to longevity but if Babar averages close to 60 after another 6-7 years with another 15 hundreds I might reconsider.

 

[mominsaigol]

Let's forget balls for a minute. Just watching Babar and Sachin bat in ODIs, Babar gives you a sense of calm that you never quite had with Sachin. Sachin is ahead for now due to longevity but if Babar averages close to 60 after another 6-7 years with another 15 hundreds I might reconsider.

Babar doesn't give you a sense of calm, he gives you a virtual heart attack like he did yesterday.

He's very lucky that during sarfi's era he had haris sohail, Hafeez and fakhar to mask his whiteball efforts.

2019 NZ innings was just as rubbish as his innings yesterday however haris sohail's freak rapid fires 80+ won the game for us yet bobby got all the credit.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Babar bhai,

You have all the talent in the world. Millions of cricket fans and kids look up to you with hopes. You know you should play for the fans also some day who are so invested in you and do prayers for your success only. Yesterday it was my dilli dua that you hit some cracking boundaries and had a big knock. You almost did but what about all the dot balls bro? You were for a change in great form yesterday , it was a fine batting pitch and with the crowd behind you, you should have really played more proactively but you didn’t. I’m so disappointed in you and Pakistanis are almost heart broken at your knock. Don’t take their love for granted bro. The fans who made you a star will also bring you down if you don’t respect them.

 

[saimayubera]

It wasn't Babar's best but poor guy is simply targeted because he is Babar. In ODIs there is no argument against Babar, he is arguably ODI GOAT, just missing longevity. Compare the stats of Sachin vs Babar at a similar age and you will see.

Rizwan the T20 champ who has never won a T20 tournament.

Babar the GOAT who chokes against first string bowling lineups lol.

You seem to be a young kid, maybe a teenager.

A lifetime of disappointment and thrashings at the hand of India await you, son.

 

[Energy]

Babar should be rightly questioned for playing the forward defensive shots for the sake of it in the powerplay. Why was he playing them right until the 25th over? What's the logic?

These are the tough questions that get brushed under the carpet under an emotionally dumb management.