Examples of traditionally defensive batting line ups which started batting aggressively?

[Savak]

For me, New Zealand Cricket definately changed the brand of cricket and the confidence with which they played their cricket with the bat under Brendon Mccullam's leadership and it was the same set of players who under previous captains were under performing but under Mccullam's leadership started to punch above their weight.

The other example i can think of Nasser Hussain who completely transformed the England side which was a joke under the leadership of Michael Atherton in the mid to late 90's. Slowly and gradually Hussain changed England from a meak team to an aggressive team in both ODI and Test Cricket and England started to win series more emphatically at home, to beat Pakistan in Pakistan, to beat Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka and to beat India in India in the ODI series and gave India a scare in India in the test series.

Sourav Ganguly to changed the way in which India played its cricket and a traditionally slow Tendulkar Dependent team became a much more dynamic confident team in both formats.

I am sick and tired of watching Pakistan batting in the Misbah style blockathon UAE style of just blocking every delivery, not even bothering to put away a remotely bad delivery and just allowing the opposition bowlers to bowl to a set rhythm and giving the fielding captain the luxury to place fielders around the bat.

When is Pakistan going to find a Hussain, Ganguly, Mccullam to change the way this team approaches, play its cricket and to just get rid of the defensive Misbah batting virus for good?

 

[unemployedgm]

This requires a systemic change

 

[Ami]

It will help to have a few world class players other than Babar

 

[Markhor]

Just bat sensibly and according to the situation.

You cannot approach Test batting in preset ways of either defensive or aggressive unlike what many Pakistan fans think. Conditions will vary, the quality of bowler must be assessed, the ball sometimes will do more than at other times.

England under Nasser batted extremely slowly in Pakistan in 2000 so not sure where OP is getting that from. What he rightly sussed was that you stay in the game long enough, ensure 1st innings parity and Pakistan would self-implode, which we did.

 

[Mamoon]

Pakistan lacks talent.

All the teams/captains mentioned in the OP had no shortage of quality players. Leadership makes a difference only when the quality is there.

Pakistan’s major problem is that the players are simply not good enough. It does not matter who the coach or captain is.

 

[chacha kashmiri]

Mickey Arthur introduced Faheem ashraf and Shadab Khan when we badly lacking youth and inpetus
He also got us fielding better
He should have had time to finish off his vision which he tried showing to the likes of Barry Richards when we last played at Lords

 

[unemployedgm]

Pakistan lacks talent.
All the teams/captains mentioned in the OP had no shortage of quality players. Leadership makes a difference only when the quality is there.

Pakistan’s major problem is that the players are simply not good enough. It does not matter who the coach or captain is.

You can upscale talent by employing better strategies. Talent is irrelevant to this conversation. You can generate alpha by changing philosophy, selection methodology, and by achieving alignment.

 

[Savak]

You can upscale talent by employing better strategies. Talent is irrelevant to this conversation. You can generate alpha by changing philosophy, selection methodology, and by achieving alignment.

Its funny how the teams i mentioned above roughly had the same players hence the same talents under previous captains but when these captains took over, these players became talented all of a sudden.

 

[Yk313]

You can upscale talent by employing better strategies. Talent is irrelevant to this conversation. You can generate alpha by changing philosophy, selection methodology, and by achieving alignment.

Thought ‘smart beta’ was all the rage until recently?

 

[guna]

I feel playing home series in UAE has played a part in Pakistan decline. Those slow dead pitches did not develop Pak batsmen at all.

 

[Mamoon]

You can upscale talent by employing better strategies. Talent is irrelevant to this conversation. You can generate alpha by changing philosophy, selection methodology, and by achieving alignment.

Sure, but we cannot do that. That is the point.

If Pakistan had the capacity and the ability to produce talent, it would have done by now. Our cricket culture is rotten to the core and we are the most ignorant and intellectually bankrupt cricket nation in the world.

These current players are not the disease. They are mere symptoms of the disease.

 

[Mamoon]

Its funny how the teams i mentioned above roughly had the same players hence the same talents under previous captains but when these captains took over, these players became talented all of a sudden.

These captains also benefited from having quality young players at their disposal who peaked at the right time together.

McCullum had himself, Williamson, Taylor, Boult. They formed a core of 4 excellent cricketers that would raise the caliber of any struggling team.

When Ganguly took over as captain in 2000, India’s young generation was significantly better than the previous one.

Apart from himself and Tendulkar, Ganguly had Dravid and Laxman in their 20’s, the likes of Yuvraj and a few years later Dhoni came along and Zaheer Khan also made his debut the same year Ganguly became captain.

That was an excellent core that formed the foundation of his success as captain.

Nasser Hussain also had the likes of Pietersen, Flintoff, Harmison, Trescothick, Gough etc.

Good Captaincy is not about converting mediocre players into quality ones. That is not possible.

Good captaincy is about managing your quality players and ensuring that they do not underperform.

Morgan would not have won a World Cup if England did not have the Bairstow, Roy, Root, Buttler, Stokes, Archer, Woakes generation, but the way he has managed these players reflects leadership.

In the 2019 World Cup, England had a stutter half way in the tournament and they were on the brink of elimination.

They were getting criticized from all quarters and were pressurized to let go of their attacking approach which was deemed risky, but the way Morgan kept the dressing room together and reinstated the belief that their playing style was the way forward showed his leadership qualities.

A lesser captain would have buckled under pressure and so would his team, but Morgan withstood the pressure.

The problem for Pakistan is more elementary. Our players are just not good enough, and you cannot transform “not good enough” players with leadership.

 

[TNAmarkFromIndia]

Nasser Hussain also had the likes of Pietersen, Flintoff, Harmison, Trescothick, Gough etc.

Pietersen never played a game under Nasser Hussain.

 

[Varun]

To add another example to your list - Morgan flicked a switch after England's 2015 WC and taught a traditionally clueless side what ODIs are all about.

 

[unemployedgm]

Sure, but we cannot do that. That is the point.

If Pakistan had the capacity and the ability to produce talent, it would have done by now. Our cricket culture is rotten to the core and we are the most ignorant and intellectually bankrupt cricket nation in the world.

These current players are not the disease. They are mere symptoms of the disease.

I agree with some of this. I guess my point is that the talent that does exist in whatever shape or form is not being optimized. Even good outcomes are generally accidental as opposed to any well thought out plan.

I always say this, you could not find 1 Pakistani who can tell you how and why we won the 1992 World Cup, Lost in 1996, Did Well in 1999 but Lost, Did Poorly in 2003, Won the T20 in 2009, and CT in 2017. These weren't random events, they happened for a reason. But no one can tell you what those reasons are. How can you replicate good performance or overcome bad performance if you are not intellectually able to conduct a thorough analysis? That speaks to a problem you're getting at.