What's new

Final ODI between Pakistan and New Zealand washed out as series ends in a 1-1 draw

Saurav said:
35/1 in 7 chasing 280.Pretty even I'd say
Click to expand...

Yeah maybe chasing in sri lanka or india. Not in UAE, especially against a team that doesnt play spin that well.

Oh and Kane Williamson wasnt playing,

It was in the bag for Pakistan.
 
What luck lol.

I get a feeling if this game gets restarted with too many lost overs, NZ might have the upper hand.
 
According to cricbuzz, rain is getting lighter but the covers are firmly on.
 
Rain has stopped and roughly 12 overs have been lost according to Blackcaps twitter handle
 
blackanhyellow said:
Yeah maybe chasing in sri lanka or india. Not in UAE, especially against a team that doesnt play spin that well.

Oh and Kane Williamson wasnt playing,

It was in the bag for Pakistan.
Click to expand...

We only have Shadab and New Hafeez.

Haris can bowl, but I'd rather have Imad.

Imad should've played instead of Asif
 
As long as we get 153 off 20 overs, should be easy for Pakistan to get into t20 mode and stop NZ getting 118 off 79
 
blackanhyellow said:
Yeah maybe chasing in sri lanka or india. Not in UAE, especially against a team that doesnt play spin that well.

Oh and Kane Williamson wasnt playing,

It was in the bag for Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Chasing is different.With under 6 rpo required,they just needed to milk the two spinners.They still have Taylor and Latham who can plan the chase
 
Reduction in overs plus wet outfield and a fresher wicket all goes in Kiwi’s favour.
 
Saurav said:
Chasing is different.With under 6 rpo required,they just needed to milk the two spinners.They still have Taylor and Latham who can plan the chase
Click to expand...

Batting gets harder as the ball gets old.

India had a hard time chasing 220 odd after the top order departed.
 
Madplayer said:
15 overs lost. Lesser runs to get. NZ can win this now. Cant believe Pakistan's bad luck.
Click to expand...

It is what it is.

Rain helped us quite a bit in the past.

Still, NZ only had Taylor as the experienced player. Pak should win this by 5 to 10 runs
 
Saurav said:
Chasing is different.With under 6 rpo required,they just needed to milk the two spinners.They still have Taylor and Latham who can plan the chase
Click to expand...

NZ were not winning this before overs were curtailed. Not in a million years. But now as the total will be revised, they are in an advantageous position.
 
From Google

In the UAE, cloud seeding is being conducted by the weather authorities to create artificial rain. The project, which began in July 2010 and cost US$11 million, has been successful in creating rain storms in the Dubai and Abu Dhabi deserts.
Click to expand...

Still there is no rain prediction in Dubai yet it's raining.
 
Chokli said:
It is what it is.

Rain helped us quite a bit in the past.

Still, NZ only had Taylor as the experienced player. Pak should win this by 5 to 10 runs
Click to expand...

Will be hard. Latham and taylor are good players.
 
warcry said:
i will quote what virat kohli siad to that fan who did not like indian batsmen but liked foreign players.

if you do not like pakistan cricket, you are free to watch something else, anything else. the premier league is on right now, der klassiker was yesterday. or you could watch kabbadi or hockey or snooker or Tennis.

or you can come out the closet and admit that you are just a bitter old man who gets all his sick kicks from demeaning everything relating to pakistan cricket.

this site was meant for actual fans of pakistan cricket and you are not one of those.
Click to expand...

ShuB-BAM
 
Madplayer said:
NZ were not winning this before overs were curtailed. Not in a million years. But now as the total will be revised, they are in an advantageous position.
Click to expand...

I don't think NZ will have any advantage in terms of RRR.

If it's a 30 overs match, then the target will be 209 which is a RRR of about 7.5 which is a challenge in UAE.

But it remains to be seen if the playing conditions have changed.
 
the_outsider said:
I don't think NZ will have any advantage in terms of RRR.

If it's a 30 overs match, then the target will be 209 which is a RRR of about 7.5 which is a challenge in UAE.

But it remains to be seen if the playing conditions have changed.
Click to expand...

If anything i think the revised target is going to be unfair to NZ lol.
 
New Yorker said:
As they say, a stopped clock tells the time at least twice a day. Stay negative long enough, and you may well be proven right. But no analyst or coach ever had much use for such hollow wisdom.

No one can know what was a player's true quality until the end of their career. Had Mitch Johnson been forced to retire because of injury before he found his grove briefly, in those series against England, his legacy would be far different from the one we know today. And the results of those series may well have been different too.

To take pride in one's ability to claim at the end of a career that a player were either good or bad is in other words nothing but tautology; the most banal and useless exercise.

To claim even before they have started their career that they will never amount to anything is equally banal, because at once cowardly and stupid, lacking in that most indispensable ingredient of wisdom; the ability to know what you cannot know.

Pakistan did some things right in the CT, have been doing many things wrong before and after the CT, and have done some things right again in this series. That is the simplest and persuasive explanation for our shifting fortunes.

So the question is, what did we do right, and how can we do more of it?

Those who cannot learn from success as well as failure will suffer each in equal measure.
Whoever cannot believe that we also make our own luck will always live at the mercy of the weather.
Click to expand...

Things that we did right

1. Did not play Hafeez in the top order (barring the third match) and made him bowl his full quota (which we aren't doing in the third match despite having two left handers on crease)

Conclusion: One slightly bent elbow forward, 180 degree back. So basically worse off from where we started.

2. Played Haris Sohail against New Zealand instead of Imad.

Conclusion: Could and should do more often of that. The lad scores runs Mic(don)key - hello from the head of cricketing committee

3. Played a lanky, hungry, young, tall fast bowler up-front who attacked stumps despite an aggressive opener on the other end and got an early breakthrough

Conclusion: If you aren't worried about stat-padding, and economy rates, you may get wickets. Do more of it, no?

4. Babar Azam scored.

Conclusion: If he scores, we get into winning positions. Fakhar scored too. So that helps as well. We still didn't make Babar open, which is terrible because Imam wasn't even there for one match but I guess we are too afraid to lose Babar that early. In the last match, we are clearly about forty runs short, it's terrible seeing Babar go for hoicks in the last few overs but I guess we won't see Babar move up so there's a major negative.

People can clamor about the Kiwi streak all the while and what not, but they beat us because whenever they were in a hole, they managed to find a hero and we didn't. Heck even the CDG rescued them from a very tricky position in the 4th ODI in NZland, and the 5th was competitive as well.

Sarfaraz as good a captain that he is in T20's just doesn't act that quickly in ODI's. We also do not under any circumstances do proper player evaluation. Hafeez and Malik are almost 40 officially, their reflexes are long-gone and even when they had them, they were sitting ducks against pace. We keep playing them in odd places, ask Malik to come in the middle and smash a few off Santner, CDG, Munro, Sodhi, Patel, and he'd happily oblige. Ask him to hit Milne, Ferguson, Southee, Henry, or Boult and he just isn't good enough. Agreed that we've never held a cricket bat and have no clue in how the sports in played and the generic term of arm chair expert fits us, but even we can see that Malik isn't able to play pace.

I guess it's the case of distance giving perspective as well, when we don't know these people, and we only evaluate them as what they can do, or do, or have the ability to accomplish during certain situations so we maintain our rationality while staying too close removes that rationality out of the picture.

We aren't a bad team in ODI's but we haven't been able to make the most of our resources.

The good thing is our captain realizes that he can't hit so he doesn't try to become a hero; in our part of the world, that still takes some doing.

If we

1. attack more when we are on top instead of reducing to type (5 fielders in the ring) we will have an increased percentage of winning. Bangladesh and Afghanistan won and nearly won against us in Asia cup because after an okayish start, we just sat back and let the game meander away. Taking a chance to win is not what comes natural to Sarfaraz in ODI's as of now

2. Continue inducting young hungrier players to the team. The younger they are, the hungrier they are, you give them time to settle in, they become complacent. Such is the celebrity culture in our country that these players soon become bigger than the team, the game. Shahid Afridi said the most damning of things in his almost close to retirement interviews and it went like "when you are young, you play for passion but then later you realize the impact of marketing and what not etc. etc" (I can't dig it up if anyone questions it but that's very much the gist of what he said). Shaheen is young and hungry and doing better than Amir who didn't really translate that hunger. Maybe Hasan Mohsin, Saud Shakeel aren't really that gifted but you need to keep them in the pool so that the hunger element remains there.

3. Play the opposition based on the conditions. I mean six fast bowlers (that too none of them express) against Asian sides in UAE. Seriously? Do I need to say more

Professional cricket is a game of really fine margins and we aren't that far behind as some may make us believe with the gloom and doom prophecies. We are there or there abouts but during pressure situations, we are just making marginal calls that are not right. A bowling switch here, a new combination there, a punt, a natural captaincy stroke of genius, and we are up there with the best.

The CT17 was won by Fakhar in a way, and that was a forced changed, we didn't really want to do that. That's the kind of brave calls that we need to take right now, and continuously and we will be doing okay.

woah. I really wrote an essay here.
 
the_outsider said:
I don't think NZ will have any advantage in terms of RRR.

If it's a 30 overs match, then the target will be 209 which is a RRR of about 7.5 which is a challenge in UAE.

But it remains to be seen if the playing conditions have changed.
Click to expand...

209 in 30 overs with 9 wickets in hand is easily doable as compared to 280 runs from 50 overs. The longer they are out there the harder is gets due to ball getting softer.
 
Drainage isn’t the best. Game will get called off if ground isn’t ready in another 45 minutes or so
 
Madplayer said:
209 in 30 overs with 9 wickets in hand is easily doable as compared to 280 runs from 50 overs. The longer they are out there the harder is gets due to ball getting softer.
Click to expand...

30 overs match means a reduction of 120 balls. And the reduction in runs is only 71 runs. That translates to a SR of 59 and RR of 3.5.

209 off 30 overs should be as much of a challenge, if not more than 280 off 50 overs.
 
On a wet field with wicket picking up the pace, NZ got the best chance to beat Pak in a shortened game. Pak will need to attack stumps more to get wickets which are more important in such a game than just controlling measures.
 
Sounds like this game will be called off even though it stopped raining over half an hour ago. Cricket is a frustrating sport sometimes.
 
Saurav said:
btw,why hasn't Haris played earlier,looked really good
Click to expand...

Same think tank that sent Shoaib Malik with 10 overs remaining rather than the specialist six hitter they selected in place of a proper all rounder
 
That is OK. We played quite alright + NZ series is just a warm up for the next Major opponent. I look forward to see some new guys in the test matches to give us hope in S.A.
 
Last edited:
Tough luck Pakistan. But amazing comeback after the first game. More than the result, a lot of positives from thisnseries. FZ proved he can weather the storm and can find a way. Bobby proving he can deliver in big games against good sides. Haris getting a game and proving he's a necessity in this batting lineup. Finally, Shaheen claiming his stake as the most exciting young talent in the world now.
 
Pakistan robbed off a series win against a strong ODI opponent!
 
Lol. Talk about Pakistan suffering from wretched luck. How often does it rain in the UAE?
 
Ramiz the jinx strikes again. Was saying earlier how ‘it never rains in dubai’. Kaali zubaan
 
Some big ODI series coming, 5 against SA, probably 5 against Aussies in Mar in UAE and 5 against Eng in Eng.
 
Blessing for pakistan. Got saved from another series loss to non minnow team.
 
Harris def needs to be in playin xi.. maybe Babar can open with Harris at 3? Safi 4 followed by Malik and hafeez? Shadab 7 faheem 8 hasan Amir (once ba in rhythm) and Shaheen. 4 pacers in WC will be handy with off spinner leggie and left arm gets plenty of options. Wish we had more players like Harris in the middle order but currently we don’t have anyone better than Malik and hafeez in my opinion.

I am not a big fan of Imam - I think he is too slow doesn’t rotate too many dots puts pressure on his partner
 
UAE chooses to produce artifical rain in a final. I've seen it all now.
 
Savak said:
Lol. Talk about Pakistan suffering from wretched luck. How often does it rain in the UAE?
Click to expand...

Not just UAE. A couple of weeks back the Asian Hockey Champions Trophy final between India and Pakistan in Muscat was abandoned because of rain, commentators said it was the 1st time in 2 years that place had seen rain LOL. Rain is following you guys in the desert to spoil your summit clashes.
 
I put the scores in DWL calculator & guess what - after 7 overs, chasing 280, per score is 35-1!!!

Kiwis had one more ball at hand, so....👌

I think, it’s quite acceptable outcome considering that none of the 2 teams deserved to lose.
 
MMHS said:
I put the scores in DWL calculator & guess what - after 7 overs, chasing 280, per score is 35-1!!!

Kiwis had one more ball at hand, so....��

I think, it’s quite acceptable outcome considering that none of the 2 teams deserved to lose.
Click to expand...

Uhmm what?
Pak finally posted above par score in a series decider!
Just be honest here we all know pak would have chocked NZ ij the middle overs.

Even if NZ had scored 50 of 5 overs i would still have backed pak to win.
 
Pakistan would have won by 50 runs at least. The wicket was dry and turning- in fact turning so much that even Sodhi turned it today.
 
Pakistan deserved to win this, unfortunate but well done to them.

I want to know what was teh behaviour like of the Kiwis towards them on the field, I heard reports that the Kiwis have not exactly been enderaing this series, Boult and wicketkepper laughing when Imam taken off the field in second ODI.
 
warcry said:
i will quote what virat kohli siad to that fan who did not like indian batsmen but liked foreign players.

if you do not like pakistan cricket, you are free to watch something else, anything else. the premier league is on right now, der klassiker was yesterday. or you could watch kabbadi or hockey or snooker or Tennis.

or you can come out the closet and admit that you are just a bitter old man who gets all his sick kicks from demeaning everything relating to pakistan cricket.

this site was meant for actual fans of pakistan cricket and you are not one of those.
Click to expand...

Even if [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] were not a fan of Pakistani cricket in the way that you are he would be entitled to his opinion. I have no way of knowing, but my sense is that the pessimism is the product of having had one's hopes brutally dashed one too many times, something that Pakistan cricket will certainly do to you, and then feeling the pain of those disappointments as only a true fan can.
 
Mamoon said:
The problem is that Pakistan did not do anything right in the Champions Trophy. They won the tournament due to a series of bizarre events which is why the wheels came off after the tournament.

There was no method or formula to our success, and that is why we have not been able to replicate it. Everything fell in place for three matches against three better teams. There is nothing replicable about how we beat South Africa, England and India, which is why have struggled to do more of it.

Hasan Ali's purple patch, South Africa imploding with the bat, D/L saving us from a banana skin run chase, England batting shoddily on a used pitch, Kohli opting to bowl, Bumrah bowling the no-ball, Kohli getting out twice in two balls etc. I won't go into Perera dropping dollies in the virtual quarterfinal because Pakistan is better than Sri Lanka.

However, other than Hasan Ali's poor run of form which needs to be looked into, the other events are not replicable. Everything that could go right for us did, and if it happens again, we will beat these top teams again. However, it is not something that happens with high frequency.

More often than not, the better team is going to win simply because it better, but we had our day in three successive games in the Champions Trophy, and such turn of events happen very rarely. India 1983 World Cup, West Indies Champions Trophy 2004 and now our triumph last year. There is nothing to learn from these successes, because there is not much that you can repeat or reproduce.
Click to expand...

I defer an argument with this account of things for now, also because the implausibility of it would likely be obvious to everyone. More pertinent to my own point are the corollary implications; that we are but eternal victims of chance; that we can do nothing and will never be able to do anything; that we must disavow even those triumphs that life does offer up to us, which is to say, to disavow enjoyment as such.

What is curious to me about this outlook is that it is in fact not realistic at all. Not merely does it not provide a credible explanation for anything, it disavows explainability itself, since, if everything is chance then the question of cause and effect and the relationship betwixt them becomes moot. Worse yet, it does not actually afford us with a way of moving through life, let alone cricket, in any kind of effective let alone joyful way.

I am not religious, strictly speaking, but an acknowledgement that the divine must have some hand in things, that we must also in some measure thank someone other than ourselves for our successes, seems to me to be a far more realistic and rational take on things than a view of the world which would assign responsibility for what happens to an eternally worthless self.
 
GoUgandaCranes said:
Things that we did right

1. Did not play Hafeez in the top order (barring the third match) and made him bowl his full quota (which we aren't doing in the third match despite having two left handers on crease)

Conclusion: One slightly bent elbow forward, 180 degree back. So basically worse off from where we started.

2. Played Haris Sohail against New Zealand instead of Imad.

Conclusion: Could and should do more often of that. The lad scores runs Mic(don)key - hello from the head of cricketing committee

3. Played a lanky, hungry, young, tall fast bowler up-front who attacked stumps despite an aggressive opener on the other end and got an early breakthrough

Conclusion: If you aren't worried about stat-padding, and economy rates, you may get wickets. Do more of it, no?

4. Babar Azam scored.

Conclusion: If he scores, we get into winning positions. Fakhar scored too. So that helps as well. We still didn't make Babar open, which is terrible because Imam wasn't even there for one match but I guess we are too afraid to lose Babar that early. In the last match, we are clearly about forty runs short, it's terrible seeing Babar go for hoicks in the last few overs but I guess we won't see Babar move up so there's a major negative.

People can clamor about the Kiwi streak all the while and what not, but they beat us because whenever they were in a hole, they managed to find a hero and we didn't. Heck even the CDG rescued them from a very tricky position in the 4th ODI in NZland, and the 5th was competitive as well.

Sarfaraz as good a captain that he is in T20's just doesn't act that quickly in ODI's. We also do not under any circumstances do proper player evaluation. Hafeez and Malik are almost 40 officially, their reflexes are long-gone and even when they had them, they were sitting ducks against pace. We keep playing them in odd places, ask Malik to come in the middle and smash a few off Santner, CDG, Munro, Sodhi, Patel, and he'd happily oblige. Ask him to hit Milne, Ferguson, Southee, Henry, or Boult and he just isn't good enough. Agreed that we've never held a cricket bat and have no clue in how the sports in played and the generic term of arm chair expert fits us, but even we can see that Malik isn't able to play pace.

I guess it's the case of distance giving perspective as well, when we don't know these people, and we only evaluate them as what they can do, or do, or have the ability to accomplish during certain situations so we maintain our rationality while staying too close removes that rationality out of the picture.

We aren't a bad team in ODI's but we haven't been able to make the most of our resources.

The good thing is our captain realizes that he can't hit so he doesn't try to become a hero; in our part of the world, that still takes some doing.

If we

1. attack more when we are on top instead of reducing to type (5 fielders in the ring) we will have an increased percentage of winning. Bangladesh and Afghanistan won and nearly won against us in Asia cup because after an okayish start, we just sat back and let the game meander away. Taking a chance to win is not what comes natural to Sarfaraz in ODI's as of now

2. Continue inducting young hungrier players to the team. The younger they are, the hungrier they are, you give them time to settle in, they become complacent. Such is the celebrity culture in our country that these players soon become bigger than the team, the game. Shahid Afridi said the most damning of things in his almost close to retirement interviews and it went like "when you are young, you play for passion but then later you realize the impact of marketing and what not etc. etc" (I can't dig it up if anyone questions it but that's very much the gist of what he said). Shaheen is young and hungry and doing better than Amir who didn't really translate that hunger. Maybe Hasan Mohsin, Saud Shakeel aren't really that gifted but you need to keep them in the pool so that the hunger element remains there.

3. Play the opposition based on the conditions. I mean six fast bowlers (that too none of them express) against Asian sides in UAE. Seriously? Do I need to say more

Professional cricket is a game of really fine margins and we aren't that far behind as some may make us believe with the gloom and doom prophecies. We are there or there abouts but during pressure situations, we are just making marginal calls that are not right. A bowling switch here, a new combination there, a punt, a natural captaincy stroke of genius, and we are up there with the best.

The CT17 was won by Fakhar in a way, and that was a forced changed, we didn't really want to do that. That's the kind of brave calls that we need to take right now, and continuously and we will be doing okay.

woah. I really wrote an essay here.
Click to expand...

i don't think it is so much about any particular player....this was my reply to a similar question on another thread. speaking of essays :)

I'm going to be counter punctual: [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] is completely right that barring a few bright sparks the existing roster reeks of mediocrity, and will not win anything anytime soon against quality opposition, let alone England and India, who are clear front runners for the WC. That said, a roster very similar to the current team won the CT not so long ago by ultimately beating every quality opposition in sight very comprehensively, including England and India, who were clear front runners for the CT.

In other words, we have to explain how Mamoon could on the one hand be absolutely right and how him being right may be besides the point. How does the quality of a roster of players become besides the point? Well, it becomes a more relative concept if we also account for that strange little word 'form'

We always seem to take form very much less seriously than "quality" Yet one term is arguably as vague and elusive as the the other. How "temporary" is form really, how "permanent" is quality? We can think of many players who sustained extraordinary 'form' for a number of years, ie Mitch Johnson, while being merely very good over their career.

People like to explain England and India's ODI success in terms of the abundance of talent available to both teams, such abundance in fact that they seem to have the luxury to swap players in and out at will while continuing to win. Yet precisely in so far as they are swapping players in and out, they are showing an indifference to something that Pakistani selectors and fans have a reverential obedience to: quality and seniority, and a sensitivity to something that Pakistani selectors have almost lost track of enitrely, form.

Could we ever imagine Pakistan dropping an Ashwin in ODIs, if such a spinner were available to us? Let alone thinking of finding another good spinner, besides Shadab Khan? Of actually not selecting a player of Dhoni's calibre, let alone a Hafeez or Malik, who may be many things, in many facets of the game, but who are also probably the least reliable closers/chasers under pressure that ODI cricket has ever seen; happy to biff a brisk 40 in a winning cause but invariably falling short when a game could very well have been won with a bit more application, as in the first ODI against NZ in this series.

Does this mean that Saud Shakeel and Haris Sohail, two genuine, in form specialist batsmen who are also very handy spin bowler will be given enough game time before the WC? Unfortunately we already know the answer to this question.

Pakistan, as we know, hardly ever uses even dead rubbers to try out new talent. Thus for instance, Malik and Hafeez were still being played in the last dead rubber T20 against NZ. Thus for instance Sadaf Hussain, who traveled with the national team to the Windies in 2013 and was at the time averaging a scarcely believable 18 in LA cricket, 12 points less than Rahat Ali, could not be given even a single opportunity in the last dead rubber of the series by genius coach and die hard Rahat fan Waqar Younis. Indeed, Sadaf will most likely never be seen national colours.

It is argued by some that Sadaf may be past his peak, and one could say that his performance recently has been merely very good, not leagues above the rest of the pack. So many may feel indifferent about this omission, much as they purport to argue that Fawad's Alam's ship has also sailed. Yet the point here is not about Sadaf's fate per se, but the selection policy itself, which seems so ill equipped to respond to form. If you don't have an abundance of stellar quality at home, that kind of lethargy is all the more damaging.

People might argue that Shaheen's run marks a brave new policy shift by the selectors, they seem finally to be willing to take a chance on young talent. But it should be remembered that Shaheen had hardly any domestic record to be judged by; he was selected because he looks good because he looked like a fast bowler should look; tall and fasti-ish. And this is still why so many people are instantly convinced about him, while continuing harbor doubts about Abbas, who is too slow, and clearly looks nothing like a square jawed Imran Khan. (Shaheen looks like someone had inflated teenage Imran Khan's head and stuck it back unto teenage Imran's body; he's literally a fast bowler caricature)

Shaheen, in other words, was selected for much the same reasons that Wahab Riaz kept being selected. (The difference is that he has made that selection count.) Shaheen, in the former respect, is an anti Hasan Ali selection; the inverse of the case of a bowler considered too short to succeed who nevertheless did so well in domestic that he had to be given a place on the bench in the CT, even if Wahab was clearly first choice. Meanwhile, another young pretender, Fakhar Zaman, was given a spot on the back of good performances, and finally got his chance when Shehzad failed one time too many. And the rest as they say history. But what kind of history? Short term, long term, what?

As we know, even a stopped clock tells the time at least twice. And by now some will say that all the doubts about Hasan were in fact true. Maybe he really is too short? The problem with this argument is that Hasan's height has not changed since the CT. We may reserve our faith in a logic that fails to predict the future, but if it also fails to explain the past we should throw in the garbage bin. The best explanation here is at once the simplest, the most general. Hasan has lost form.

This explanation is also the most useful kind of explanation if we draw from it not merely the conclusion that Hasan himself should be persisted with - that is one conclusion to draw, because he has clearly shown that he is capable of being the very best - but also to acknowledge that we need to be in a position to select the next Hasan Ali, if Hasan Ali fails to regain his form. Ie. to be open to performers in domestics who are in good nick.

So for me, the answer to the question of who should be Pakistan's World Cup XI is that the the question itself should be more open ended. It is not merely about selecting who, but selecting them when.
 
Not really. Reduced over gives better odds for chasing team.Bcz 20 overs reduced but all wickets in hand, if number of wickets reduced by 2 alongwith overs then it would be even.
Say if a team is 150/5, in 20 overs chasing 215 in 30 overs, an all rounder comes in and hit 35(25), then they are home provided they other batsmen only stay there.
If same team chasing 285, and 150/5 in 20 overs alongwith that 35 innings, atleast 2 maybe three simillar contributions needed.
 
KP From India said:
Not really. Reduced over gives better odds for chasing team.Bcz 20 overs reduced but all wickets in hand, if number of wickets reduced by 2 alongwith overs then it would be even.
Say if a team is 150/5, in 20 overs chasing 215 in 30 overs, an all rounder comes in and hit 35(25), then they are home provided they other batsmen only stay there.
If same team chasing 285, and 150/5 in 20 overs alongwith that 35 innings, atleast 2 maybe three simillar contributions needed.
Click to expand...
Have you seen our mid to lower order? They're good for 15 runs between them.
 
Santner is good. Sodhi can get 28 as we saw in 1 st odi. Southee hits sixes at will wont be a bad idea to send him as a pinch hitter.
 
New Yorker said:
i don't think it is so much about any particular player....this was my reply to a similar question on another thread. speaking of essays :)

I'm going to be counter punctual: [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] is completely right that barring a few bright sparks the existing roster reeks of mediocrity, and will not win anything anytime soon against quality opposition, let alone England and India, who are clear front runners for the WC. That said, a roster very similar to the current team won the CT not so long ago by ultimately beating every quality opposition in sight very comprehensively, including England and India, who were clear front runners for the CT.

In other words, we have to explain how Mamoon could on the one hand be absolutely right and how him being right may be besides the point. How does the quality of a roster of players become besides the point? Well, it becomes a more relative concept if we also account for that strange little word 'form'

We always seem to take form very much less seriously than "quality" Yet one term is arguably as vague and elusive as the the other. How "temporary" is form really, how "permanent" is quality? We can think of many players who sustained extraordinary 'form' for a number of years, ie Mitch Johnson, while being merely very good over their career.

People like to explain England and India's ODI success in terms of the abundance of talent available to both teams, such abundance in fact that they seem to have the luxury to swap players in and out at will while continuing to win. Yet precisely in so far as they are swapping players in and out, they are showing an indifference to something that Pakistani selectors and fans have a reverential obedience to: quality and seniority, and a sensitivity to something that Pakistani selectors have almost lost track of enitrely, form.

Could we ever imagine Pakistan dropping an Ashwin in ODIs, if such a spinner were available to us? Let alone thinking of finding another good spinner, besides Shadab Khan? Of actually not selecting a player of Dhoni's calibre, let alone a Hafeez or Malik, who may be many things, in many facets of the game, but who are also probably the least reliable closers/chasers under pressure that ODI cricket has ever seen; happy to biff a brisk 40 in a winning cause but invariably falling short when a game could very well have been won with a bit more application, as in the first ODI against NZ in this series.

Does this mean that Saud Shakeel and Haris Sohail, two genuine, in form specialist batsmen who are also very handy spin bowler will be given enough game time before the WC? Unfortunately we already know the answer to this question.

Pakistan, as we know, hardly ever uses even dead rubbers to try out new talent. Thus for instance, Malik and Hafeez were still being played in the last dead rubber T20 against NZ. Thus for instance Sadaf Hussain, who traveled with the national team to the Windies in 2013 and was at the time averaging a scarcely believable 18 in LA cricket, 12 points less than Rahat Ali, could not be given even a single opportunity in the last dead rubber of the series by genius coach and die hard Rahat fan Waqar Younis. Indeed, Sadaf will most likely never be seen national colours.

It is argued by some that Sadaf may be past his peak, and one could say that his performance recently has been merely very good, not leagues above the rest of the pack. So many may feel indifferent about this omission, much as they purport to argue that Fawad's Alam's ship has also sailed. Yet the point here is not about Sadaf's fate per se, but the selection policy itself, which seems so ill equipped to respond to form. If you don't have an abundance of stellar quality at home, that kind of lethargy is all the more damaging.

People might argue that Shaheen's run marks a brave new policy shift by the selectors, they seem finally to be willing to take a chance on young talent. But it should be remembered that Shaheen had hardly any domestic record to be judged by; he was selected because he looks good because he looked like a fast bowler should look; tall and fasti-ish. And this is still why so many people are instantly convinced about him, while continuing harbor doubts about Abbas, who is too slow, and clearly looks nothing like a square jawed Imran Khan. (Shaheen looks like someone had inflated teenage Imran Khan's head and stuck it back unto teenage Imran's body; he's literally a fast bowler caricature)

Shaheen, in other words, was selected for much the same reasons that Wahab Riaz kept being selected. (The difference is that he has made that selection count.) Shaheen, in the former respect, is an anti Hasan Ali selection; the inverse of the case of a bowler considered too short to succeed who nevertheless did so well in domestic that he had to be given a place on the bench in the CT, even if Wahab was clearly first choice. Meanwhile, another young pretender, Fakhar Zaman, was given a spot on the back of good performances, and finally got his chance when Shehzad failed one time too many. And the rest as they say history. But what kind of history? Short term, long term, what?

As we know, even a stopped clock tells the time at least twice. And by now some will say that all the doubts about Hasan were in fact true. Maybe he really is too short? The problem with this argument is that Hasan's height has not changed since the CT. We may reserve our faith in a logic that fails to predict the future, but if it also fails to explain the past we should throw in the garbage bin. The best explanation here is at once the simplest, the most general. Hasan has lost form.

This explanation is also the most useful kind of explanation if we draw from it not merely the conclusion that Hasan himself should be persisted with - that is one conclusion to draw, because he has clearly shown that he is capable of being the very best - but also to acknowledge that we need to be in a position to select the next Hasan Ali, if Hasan Ali fails to regain his form. Ie. to be open to performers in domestics who are in good nick.

So for me, the answer to the question of who should be Pakistan's World Cup XI is that the the question itself should be more open ended. It is not merely about selecting who, but selecting them when.
Click to expand...

As much as I like the guy you mentioned, there's a pattern to him that is pretty obvious and it goes like this.

Everyone in our team is basically flawed and terrible, and if and when the player starts performing, they manage to for a brief moment create a change of heart which is openly admitted, and as soon as the failures start mounting, it is back to the original corollary. Exceptions to this are players who perform only under certain conditions so they are totally ignored ala Shah because he either performs in London or dust bowls and does jack outside of that.

Reminds me of a signature once upon a time saying something like "kick Ahmed Shehzad now or else suffer for the next ten years", then Shehzad started performing, and the signature was openly accepted as a mistake and promptly removed, but a while after Shehzad started failing and it was back to the original hypothesis with even more fervor going on and on about how we are a shambolic cricket nation that doesn't have talent or isn't able to nurture or identify it in any form or way.

I am in no way saying that this way of thinking is either wrong or right, it's just a way of life and it's good to find whatever works for you so I hope they manage even more success in life in the future. [MENTION=138254]Syed1[/MENTION] would probably shed more light into this because I've not really followed these discussions for some time now so that's all the time and understanding I have on this related to the first question.

Now coming to the last part and more pertinent question and even more essays.

There's a phrase about cricket that you hear a lot when you start playing and it goes as "cricket by chance hai". The fact is that one practices and practices and hones ones skills in order to have a muscle memory so that one works on instinct to reduce ambiguity in ones head. Basically reducing the level of chance which comes through second guessing ones instincts, but still at the end of the day, a modern day maestro like Kohli can get out every once in a while and on somedays, give two chances to the opposition in two balls. It won't ofcourse happen again and again, but it can happen, despite the strict training regiment.

The Pakistani puzzle for world cup XI is not going to be solved systematically by our management. We will continue to put Imam in the opening place, we will hope that Fakhar replicates his form, and that Babar loses the stage fright to spread his wings and becomes more than an accumulator, and the elderly statesmen in our team decide enough is enough so let's go out with a bang, and that our bowling attack just has one of its better days. You see, hope is in a way, our greatest asset, still.

There's no doubt that Eng and Ind seem to stand above the others like the twin peaks of Mt. Everest over the plains of Himalayas but in a particular moment when a game is on, the margins aren't really miles but milimeters. That's why, no matter how slim of a chance we have of beating them on a given day, we still have a chance.

If we go philosophical or try to solve this from other angles, basically how a country does on her sporting front shows the measure of the society as to where it is and where it's heading to. Like stock exchange, one can see from sports what is happening with the youth of the said country. Reminds me of the miracle on ice and how it lifted a nation, or how Ali became a symbol of a bold new world and became a global superstar and was known in places where they don't even know what boxing is.

On that socioeconomic front, we are doing terribly and that's putting it mildly (ofcourse this is a perspective and can be proven totally wrong). The leaches attached everywhere in our system are just not going to leave that easy. Plus the rise of media inaway (social & traditional) has given power to a lot of people that literally have no idea what to do about that, thus creating even newer leaches. Our journalists thrive on conflict, and not just that, they have means to create it when there's none. We've seen what boardroom instability does to even the best of cricketing nations, and here we are, always fighting behind closed doors for all kind of petty reasons and non-issues.

Go through the twitter feeds of our so-called sports journalists bar a few and you'll see the pressure tactics going around all the time. The player lobbies, the ex-cricketer lobbies, the chairmen of board both current and past; it's a gravy train that noone wants to let go basically.

We also seem to not possess the ability within us to truly categorize where we truly stand as a society - absolutely nowhere in global picture - but hearing our people talk feels like we are still the damn center of the entire universe, the known one, and even the unknown one. Our sporting moments, our music, our culture, none of it even exists outside the boundaries of our country and we still think that whatever we have is the greatest (the grandeur that we think we have but don't really have). Our music the best, our players the best, our talent the best, our brains the smartest, our men the handsomest, our women the prettiest etc. etc. you probably get the gist by now anyway.

So basically, all of this reflects in our cricket which is just a combination of a little garbage from here, a little trash from there, a bit of glitter, some start dust; but too little to really mask the pile of hubris underneath. Basically, Mani now, Sethi then, but Arsal Sheikhs forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Savak
SENA stats don’t lie: Pakistan edge India in England and New Zealand
2
Replies
112
Views
3K
harshjoshi87
harshjoshi87
Savak
New Zealand becoming the new Australia for Pakistan since 2011
Replies
29
Views
1K
GoUgandaCranes
GoUgandaCranes
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
Predict the outcome of the 3-match ODI series between New Zealand and Pakistan
Replies
28
Views
1K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Tri-Nation ODI series between Pakistan, New Zealand and South Africa - Speed Watch
Replies
13
Views
552
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Savak
Resume of the 90's team vs Resume of the 2003 team onwards
Replies
61
Views
2K
TheSultan
T
Back
Top