For Pakistani fans, its all about the perception and visuals

[Major]

Player A scores runs in an over by taking two doubles and four singles.
Player B scores runs in an over by hitting a four, taking a double, two singles, and playing 2 dots.

End result, both are getting the same score, only difference is Player B is taking maybe more risk and thus risking his wicket.

Before the WC match against South Africa, the debate around here was whether you would take 40-0 or 60-2 at the end of the powerplay

Most fans preferred the latter.

During the SA game in the WC2022, by the end of the powerplay, Pakistan's score was 42/3 and after the next over it was 43/4.

Yet, this score was enjoyed by the fans and no one was criticizing about the low score. Why? Because Mohammad Harris hit three sixes and two fours and than got out.

Point being, Pakistani fans dont care about the score, for them its the visuals of hitting fours and sixes.

At the end of the day, the same score is being made in the PP but with the loss of more wickets, THAT IS NOT IMPROVEMENT!

 

[TheNightWatchman]

That's because Babar at the other end couldn't get anything away so he negated Haris's start. If he had gone at least run a ball it would have been much more.

 

[Varun]

Player A scores runs in an over by taking two doubles and four singles.
Player B scores runs in an over by hitting a four, taking a double, two singles, and playing 2 dots.

End result, both are getting the same score, only difference is Player B is taking maybe more risk and thus risking his wicket.

Before the WC match against South Africa, the debate around here was whether you would take 40-0 or 60-2 at the end of the powerplay

Most fans preferred the latter.

During the SA game in the WC2022, by the end of the powerplay, Pakistan's score was 42/3 and after the next over it was 43/4.

Yet, this score was enjoyed by the fans and no one was criticizing about the low score. Why? Because Mohammad Harris hit three sixes and two fours and than got out.

Point being, Pakistani fans dont care about the score, for them its the visuals of hitting fours and sixes.

At the end of the day, the same score is being made in the PP but with the loss of more wickets, THAT IS NOT IMPROVEMENT!

We knew this already.

Didn't a hack like Afridi have a 20-year career with the team?

 

[GLORY OF '92]

We knew this already.

Didn't a hack like Afridi have a 20-year career with the team?

Afridi is a world cup champion. Clutch cricketer who has a wonderful test record aswell. Underestimated. He has decimated all bowlers in all conditions.

Babar and Rizwan aren't fit to tie his shoelaces.

 

[Suleiman]

We knew this already.

Didn't a hack like Afridi have a 20-year career with the team?

Show some respect. You’re talking about one of the greatest allrounders of the post-modern, post WWII era.

 

[Major]

We knew this already.

Didn't a hack like Afridi have a 20-year career with the team?

yup, one of the most over rated cricketers who we made captain.

Fans used to prefer him over proper cricketers

 

[Farabi]

We knew this already.

Didn't a hack like Afridi have a 20-year career with the team?

If you add up Afridis batting and bowling, he was a match winner. Even right now, a player with 150 SR in batting and wicket taking ability is worth gold in all the leagues around the world. Afridi also won Pak T20 World Cup with MOTM perf in 2009 semi and finals.

 

[Hitman]

Show some respect. You’re talking about one of the greatest allrounders of the post-modern, post WWII era.

) ) Thoda jyada ho gaya!

 

[Farabi]

Player A scores runs in an over by taking two doubles and four singles.
Player B scores runs in an over by hitting a four, taking a double, two singles, and playing 2 dots.

End result, both are getting the same score, only difference is Player B is taking maybe more risk and thus risking his wicket.

Before the WC match against South Africa, the debate around here was whether you would take 40-0 or 60-2 at the end of the powerplay

Most fans preferred the latter.

During the SA game in the WC2022, by the end of the powerplay, Pakistan's score was 42/3 and after the next over it was 43/4.

Yet, this score was enjoyed by the fans and no one was criticizing about the low score. Why? Because Mohammad Harris hit three sixes and two fours and than got out.

Point being, Pakistani fans dont care about the score, for them its the visuals of hitting fours and sixes.

At the end of the day, the same score is being made in the PP but with the loss of more wickets, THAT IS NOT IMPROVEMENT!

Your point is a good one. But the WC game vs SA example is throwing people off.

You are 100% right in saying that the visual of Risky batting seems like we are going faster than we really are. For example Sharjeel, Fakhar, Rizbabar all have SRs of 120ish in the PP. Yet, people ignore the data and trust their eyes even though they are all the same pace.

That said, SA is a poor example. Haris’ start was a good one but it was offset by Babar’s and Shan’s slower innings, so net impact was subdued. On a normal day when Babar is striking at 120 SR, Babar would be 20 runs in 16 balls not 6, and Pak would have made 60 runs in PP not 44, which is imposing on the game.

 

[Major]

Your point is a good one. But the WC game vs SA example is throwing people off.

You are 100% right in saying that the visual of Risky batting seems like we are going faster than we really are. For example Sharjeel, Fakhar, Rizbabar all have SRs of 120ish in the PP. Yet, people ignore the data and trust their eyes even though they are all the same pace.

That said, SA is a poor example. Haris’ start was a good one but it was offset by Babar’s and Shan’s slower innings, so net impact was subdued. On a normal day when Babar is striking at 120 SR, Babar would be 20 runs in 16 balls not 6, and Pak would have made 60 runs in PP not 44, which is imposing on the game.

I agree with what you said.

But the criticism wasn't there on the team was it by the fans like riz and babar would get.

I don't mind such a score in pp but Rizwan and babar do need to accelerate more later on

 

[emranabbas]

We knew this already.

Didn't a hack like Afridi have a 20-year career with the team?

Hack afridi also won as many games single handedly

 

[Rana]

So fans should enjoy the intent to play dots and nudges in the powerplay?

 

[Rana]

Babar, Rizwan and Shan show more intent to take singles, nudges and dots in the powerplay or in T20 in general than they do to hit boundaries and in particular lofted strokes over the inner circle

The criticism of this terrible approach is totally valid and justified. In fact, there isn’t enough of it and InshaAllah with my persistence on this subject the mindset will change and the Misbah mindset which has destroyed our cricket will die!

 

[Mamoon]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

 

[Gullycricket]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

Quality post. Great explanation. I think that settles it

 

[Zaz]

Op is spot on Its all about the visuals

A certain poster here believes in his imagination that a partnership of fakhar and sharjeel would make use of the power play and rain boundaries galore if they open

However he seems to over look the fact that their strike rate opening is very similar to babar and riz and not greater and also riz babar avge much more at a similar strike rate

Theyre not interested in facts and stats For them those two are boundary hitters and no matter what should open when in reality their output is worse than riz babar

 

[hitthestump]

Good post in the OP. The is the consequence of low intelligence coupled with high emotional disregulation leading to pure fantasyland.

Some were practically going gaga for Fakhar over his 20 (16) and why? Because....he hit the ball hard once or twice?

The reality is that 70 (49) with Rizwan finding gaps, stealing twos and scoring runs actually wins games more often than not.

This is the equivalent to babies finding interest in the pretty lights on their mobile. Ultimately the adults need to take charge and ignore them unless they can start backing up their statements with facts.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

It's all about momentum and the impetus it gives an innings

 

[Major]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

You make a very valid point, but than again same theory can be applied that there are bowlers that would bowl better if the opposition is trying to hit him for boundaries..

Pakistan has had good success with Babar and Rizwan. You have watched alot of cricket, we have never had openers that are dependable, this is the first time we have batted with such openers.

Point being, even the hitter openers we have got are making the same score but with the loss of more wickets. So its better to score the same runs but by atleast saving those wickets.

I do agree that Rizwan and Babar should pace the innings more especially after the pp

 

[ezhil]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

Great analysis

 

[Rana]

I do agree that Rizwan and Babar should pace the innings more especially after the pp

Why do you continuously say things that are wrong on a million levels??

The purpose of the powerplay isn’t to get a feel for the wicket!!

 

[Markhor]

Perception and visuals is also partly why Babar and Rizwan have enjoyed such a lengthy run as openers.

Babar plays in an aesthetically pleasing manner - his cover drives are replayed in GIF form countless times on social media - therefore escapes much criticism for repeatedly failing in ICC tournaments and in pressure situations. In white ball WCs you can count only two truly top class innings in his whole career befitting his talent and ability - the NZL innings in 2019 and the IND chase in 2021.

Rizwan's over the top displays of religiousity (not that I've an issue with people of faith) to the point of praying on the field in drinks breaks (something we never saw even during the Inzamam era) goes down well in our conservative nation that likes to wear religion on our sleeves unlike most Muslim nations.

Their limitations with the bat are not perceptions, it's reality as evident by the AUS SF (both batted too slowly on a belter), Asia Cup Final, ENG series decider, NZL tri-series final and the entirety of this WC. They strike at just over 7 RPO in the PP which is amongst the lowest in world.

 

[Markhor]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

Superb post, and my nomination for POTW.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

Surely POTW?

 

[pratiktc]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

POTW material. Excellent analysis.

 

[zarak]

Player A scores runs in an over by taking two doubles and four singles.
Player B scores runs in an over by hitting a four, taking a double, two singles, and playing 2 dots.

End result, both are getting the same score, only difference is Player B is taking maybe more risk and thus risking his wicket.

Before the WC match against South Africa, the debate around here was whether you would take 40-0 or 60-2 at the end of the powerplay

Most fans preferred the latter.

During the SA game in the WC2022, by the end of the powerplay, Pakistan's score was 42/3 and after the next over it was 43/4.

Yet, this score was enjoyed by the fans and no one was criticizing about the low score. Why? Because Mohammad Harris hit three sixes and two fours and than got out.

Point being, Pakistani fans dont care about the score, for them its the visuals of hitting fours and sixes.

At the end of the day, the same score is being made in the PP but with the loss of more wickets, THAT IS NOT IMPROVEMENT!

Maybe it's more about Intent rather than visuals. We want to see players be brave

 

[Rana]

Maybe it's more about Intent rather than visuals. We want to see players be brave

But Major feels the powerplay is a brief period for players to find the feel of the wicket in a 20 over game!

 

[emranabbas]

this is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler a goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler b goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for bowler a and red for bowler b. The captain is more likely to keep bowler a in the attack.

When kohli destroyed rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with india.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that kohli and pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where india would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and kohli and pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for pakistan. The momentum is still with pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way babar and rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because babar and rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If rohit sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but babar and rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against south africa, in spite of the low pp score thanks to babar and the fact that pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way haris played ruffled south africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with babar and rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that haris played made south africa uncomfortable, and iftikhar and shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to south africa that pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of t20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the babar and rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, england would open with root, new zealand would open with williamson and australia would open with smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than babar and rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, rizwan and m. Wasim.

potw

 

[NishanKonar]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

Brilliant post. Very well explained by Mammoon

 

[JibranAnsari]

no it wasnt Ok for pakistan fans , didnt you see the thread complaining about babar azam failing to rotate strike or hit boundaries. Pakistani fans are sick of batsmen with no intent like we saw against nederlands. We are sick of players playing for their own milestones instead of for the team os situation at hand.

 

[arif_2021]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

Well finally you admit that Shadab Khan is a world class talent that single handedly demolished SA attack in Australia after the team was struggling.

Scoring a clutch 50.

Then taking two decisive wickets.

Lots of Afridi-like performances from 2009 in that

Please admit that Shadab proved you wrong.

 

[emranabbas]

You make a very valid point, but than again same theory can be applied that there are bowlers that would bowl better if the opposition is trying to hit him for boundaries..

Pakistan has had good success with Babar and Rizwan. You have watched alot of cricket, we have never had openers that are dependable, this is the first time we have batted with such openers.

Point being, even the hitter openers we have got are making the same score but with the loss of more wickets. So its better to score the same runs but by atleast saving those wickets.

I do agree that Rizwan and Babar should pace the innings more especially after the pp

You have completely missed the point about momentum.

 

[rhony]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

Great post. There is no ideal batsman in T20s. You need a bit of skill to hit the new ball bowlers against pace. You need supple wrists to squeeze the spinners in the middle overs. You have to slog like a madman in the death overs. ABD comes close but he was a middle order batsman. Jos Butler has the potential. Other teams that don't have a Butler or ABD try to make the team with players that fit in this mould at several stages. Except Pakistan. There is a reason for that too. Pak couldn't find high quality top order batsman that can dominate. Instead the game is revolved around the skill of the bowlers and the batsmen to make a par score to make a match out of it. The role of Babar and Rizwan was always to not leave too many balls for Asif Ali, Shadab or Nawaz. If the openers fail, the others like Shan Masood, Ifthikar, Khushdil play that role to leave those last 4 overs to sloggers.

Pak's plan was always to attack for 24 overs. 4 death overs during batting and 20 overs during bowling.

 

[Mahee]

Mamoon is a very good cricket analyst...love reading his posts

 

[Nikhil_cric]

I think Pakistan need to approach this with a lot of nuance.

There is a reason why England were successful with their uber aggressive batting approach in the 2014-2020 period in T20s.

That version of the kookaburra simply refused to move off the straight and the pitches were extremely flat.

In the last 2 years, there has been a steep increase in swing and that approach is not viable at certain venues.

In this World Cup we have seen that PP batting is tough at Perth, MCG and Hobart. Even at Adelaide it has not been completely straightforward apart from a freak knock by Litton in slightly wet conditions under lights.

Sydney has been a major exception to this and aggressive PP batting has ked to wins. So, Pakistan need to make Mohammad Haris open and go hard from ball 1 against NZ.

At MCG, we have consistently seem that hitting at the death is more productive . Better to consolidate, go hard hard at the death to get above par.

 

[Smbhayi]

I thought Nawaz bowled brilliantly and had two wicket taking deliveries. Those beamers were nicely bowled as he saw the batsman coming down to charge on his delivery and No they were not no balls.

You assuming Kohli would have slogged if that not a freehit delivery.. and those beamers were due to he is panicked, and Kohli didn't stepped out.. I too think it's not a no ball considering ball would have been dipped to his waist level but at the point of strike surely it was above waist high (I don't know rules about which will considered)

 

[uppercut]

This is the half truth only. It would be accurate if cricket was played on a piece of paper, but things are different in actual match scenarios.

Boundaries demoralize bowlers and fielders. It puts bowlers off their lengths, puts pressure on the fielders and more importantly, it forces the captain to change things.

Bowler A goes for 12 runs in an over by conceding 2 runs on every ball. Bowler B goes for 12 runs by conceded two 100m sixes.

If there is a confidence meter, it will be green for Bowler A and red for Bowler B. The captain is more likely to keep Bowler A in the attack.

When Kohli destroyed Rauf with those 2 sixes and changed the equation from 28 in 8 to 16 in 6, it sent Pakistan into panic mode.

On paper, Pakistan was still ahead, but in the middle, it was Pakistan that was on the back-foot and all the momentum was with India.

What transpired in the last over had a lot to do with those 2 sixes. Babar asked Nawaz to bowl medium pace because he was afraid that Kohli and Pandya were going to finish the game off with 3 sixes.

The consequence was that Nawaz ended up bowling two beamers and a wide.

Now imagine a scenario where India would have played less dots in the middle-overs and got more 2s and 3s and the equation was 28 required in 12 balls.

Rauf was able to nail his yorkers and Kohli and Pandya fail to hit boundaries but were able to run 2 on each ball.

The equation would still be the same before the final over: 16 required.

But now, everything is different for Pakistan. The momentum is still with Pakistan. Babar is unlikely to go into panic mode and ask Nawaz to bowl medium, he probably doesn’t bowl two beamers and a wide, and Pakistan probably wins by 4-5 runs.

The way Babar and Rizwan bat, they don’t put any pressure on the bowlers, fielders and captain. He doesn’t need to tinker with his bowling changes and he doesn’t need to change the field because Babar and Rizwan do not force him to think outside the box.

They can bat 10 overs but nothing has changed for the opposition. They don’t have any momentum and the opposition knows that they will not be able to tee off.

If Rohit Sharma bats slowly, he still carries a fear factor because he can explode but Babar and Rizwan don’t carry that fear factor.

The opposition knows that when they get out, the middle-order will arrive with no momentum behind their backs, they will have to start from scratch. They may or may not fire.

Against South Africa, in spite of the low PP score thanks to Babar and the fact that Pakistan had lost 4 wickets, the way Haris played ruffled South Africa’s feathers.

Pakistan had more momentum than they would have with Babar and Rizwan batting and achieving the same score by nudging the ball around.

The high intensity cricket that Haris played made South Africa uncomfortable, and Iftikhar and Shadab were able to carry that momentum forward.

Haris first three balls against Rabada - the 6, 6, 4 - laid the marker and sent a message to South Africa that Pakistan have come out swinging today. That is the brand of T20 cricket that we want to see and that is how this format needs to be played.

Other teams are not stupid. If the Babar and Rizwan template was the way to go other teams would have adopted this approach.

These two have doing this for 2 years and have 50+ averages but other sides are not adopting this strategy. If it worked, England would open with Root, New Zealand would open with Williamson and Australia would open with Smith.

All of them are better and more accomplished batsmen than Babar and Rizwan and they can score 50 in 40 balls day in day out. Babar and Rizwan have the easiest job in the format, but this is not the way how it is supposed to be played.

This drama has come to an end. Pakistan needs to do what other teams are doing and pick two attack-minded openers, but nothing will change because of the three egos: Babar, Rizwan and M. Wasim.

There is one thing that you have overlooked in this post. And that is for nearly half of his innings Kohli was batting in Testmatch mode. His score was 15 of 23 balls with Zero 4s or 6s which is well short of the 12 runs in singles and two's that you are using to illustrate your point.

Therefore the main crux of the matter is that in Cricket ( even in T20s !!) you have to respect conditions, match situations, opposition and bat accordingly and at that point in time preserving wkts was the prime goal as these 2 were the main match winners. ( Iam not sold on DK but that is a different topic )

So that is exactly what Hardik and Kohli did after coming together at 32/4. It doesn't mean that they almost handed the game to Pakistan due to their conservative batting. But if you are trying to say that the same two batsmen ( or even similar stature/class/skill levels ) can chase down 48 in 3 overs in a very high stakes game after being well set then that cannot be true. That would mean we are almost reducing our beloved game to a formula. Doesn't work that way in my humble opinion as it still required a lot of luck for India to pull off 16 of 5.

 

[Caved12]

You assuming Kohli would have slogged if that not a freehit delivery.. and those beamers were due to he is panicked, and Kohli didn't stepped out.. I too think it's not a no ball considering ball would have been dipped to his waist level but at the point of strike surely it was above waist high (I don't know rules about which will considered)

19.2 - Nawaz adjusted right away as DK was almost half way down the track. Great delivery!
19.4 - Virat was standing right on the crease and at the point of contact, he was clearly outside the crease.

After the ball to DK, which was clearly not a no ball as DK was half way down the track which Virat knew as well, but kept putting pressure on Erasmus. I was surprised to see this as Virat would not shut up for the next minute or so.

 

[Caved12]

[MENTION=135839]Smbhayi[/MENTION], A good/tall fielder could have converted that six into a wicket. Nawaz almost got Kohli out as well. Nawaz did not panic as he was thinking and executing very well from the ball one. There is a reason why Spinners don't bowl the last over of the match. 8 out 10 times, a slow bowler would fail to defend 16 runs from the last 6 balls. Rauf and Afridi screwed up big time in the previous two overs.

 

[Kianig89]

Visuals and perception do matter, even if a dud like Shan plays a blinder today he can write his name in Pakistan cricket's history

 

[happydavy]

[MENTION=135839]Smbhayi[/MENTION], A good/tall fielder could have converted that six into a wicket. Nawaz almost got Kohli out as well. Nawaz did not panic as he was thinking and executing very well from the ball one. There is a reason why Spinners don't bowl the last over of the match. 8 out 10 times, a slow bowler would fail to defend 16 runs from the last 6 balls. Rauf and Afridi screwed up big time in the previous two overs.

Mistake Nawaz made was to not revert to spin once Pandya got out on first ball. Kohli is a far better player of pace than spin and while DK is a bad player of both spin and pace, he's worse off against spin.

 

[Suleiman]

I think a lot of people here take stats at face value without digging deep and understanding context. It’s like the equivalent in middle or high school when you do a lab report, and you just submit the data sheet without any conclusion or evaluation of the data. You’d probably get a D.

As said above, the mental aspect of getting quick starts cannot be discounted. Anyone who has played club cricket at least will know what it’s like to come in to bat when the previous batsmen or batsman has blitzed runs in a few balls. That confidence now leaks through the remainder of the batsmen and demoralizes the bowlers in a format that’s already not giving them a lot of advantage over the batsmen.

If you want to know the impact of six hitting, look no further than what Kohli did to Haris with the first six. His entire body went limp in his follow through as he watched the ball sail over him. And it’s evident that he lost the plot and bowled a freebie despite being an expert Yorker bowler and a true asset for the team in death overs in the last few months. It’s all about pressure. Even though he had plenty of runs to defend as a wiggle room, an insane shot like that that very few can play sapped his mental energy.

the “visuals” do matter. Because subconsciously they ease the pressure for the teammates of the batsmen, and ramp up pressure for the opposition. Pressure handling is everything in tournaments

Now am I saying every single batsman on the team should be a 30 runs off 15 type of player? No. There is a place for “anchors” in the team, but not the way Pakistan does it by stacking 3-4 in one lineup.

 

[Major]

BUMP

THis is what I was talking about. Had we not went for boundaries, rotated the strike, we were good enough to score 160+. MCG has big boundaries and its big risk to go for the boundaries. You can easily score 3 runs at MCG or steal 2 runs due to the ground being big.

Pakistan was scoring well when it was rotating strike, but failed when it went for boundries.

As usual, the team played for the visuals.

Look at what Harris was doing. He couldn't get the ball go to the fence because its a huge ground.

 

[Civil]

Totally agree here. Shan and Shadab could have easily gone at 8s or 9s with no risk and running.

 

[Fenrir]

Team management did not do it’s home work.England TM do meticulous planning.They use stats and study strengths and weaknesses of the opposition.

 

[charlie007]

BUMP

THis is what I was talking about. Had we not went for boundaries, rotated the strike, we were good enough to score 160+. MCG has big boundaries and its big risk to go for the boundaries. You can easily score 3 runs at MCG or steal 2 runs due to the ground being big.

Pakistan was scoring well when it was rotating strike, but failed when it went for boundries.

As usual, the team played for the visuals.

Look at what Harris was doing. He couldn't get the ball go to the fence because its a huge ground.

You can “BUMP” all you want but scoring under a run a ball in a huge field like MCG counts as a failure and an opportunity lost. The whole idea around scoring around 115-120 initially is to get set and then take off. Babar took his time, wasted balls, and GOT OUT.

 

[rajulakhpati]

We knew this already.

Didn't a hack like Afridi have a 20-year career with the team?

Absolute waste of a player that held Pak cricket hostage for the better part of 2 decades. Never understood fan obsession of him. Used to score a 50 once a year.

 

[rajulakhpati]

BUMP

THis is what I was talking about. Had we not went for boundaries, rotated the strike, we were good enough to score 160+. MCG has big boundaries and its big risk to go for the boundaries. You can easily score 3 runs at MCG or steal 2 runs due to the ground being big.

Pakistan was scoring well when it was rotating strike, but failed when it went for boundries.

As usual, the team played for the visuals.

Look at what Harris was doing. He couldn't get the ball go to the fence because its a huge ground.

Buttler was hitting boundaries with ease

 

[hitthestump]

BUMP

THis is what I was talking about. Had we not went for boundaries, rotated the strike, we were good enough to score 160+. MCG has big boundaries and its big risk to go for the boundaries. You can easily score 3 runs at MCG or steal 2 runs due to the ground being big.

Pakistan was scoring well when it was rotating strike, but failed when it went for boundries.

As usual, the team played for the visuals.

Look at what Harris was doing. He couldn't get the ball go to the fence because its a huge ground.

It was clear that Babar and Rizwan were both looking to take the game deep. A 70 run score from either of them would probably have been matchwinning. This wasn't a big scoring pitch and our batsmen have no business trying to hit sixes on this ground.

It's a shame because Pakistan have been experts recently at getting 160 type scores. On this occasion RizBab didn't fire.

 

[hitthestump]

Buttler was hitting boundaries with ease

Bhai we cannot compare Buttler to any Pakistani batsman in the history of the game, let alone the mediocre batsmen in our current XI.

 

[kingusama92]

Absolute waste of a player that held Pak cricket hostage for the better part of 2 decades. Never understood fan obsession of him. Used to score a 50 once a year.

To be fair, his peak was absolutely dominant in T20Is.

Between 2008 and 2010 - 13.73 AVG (bowling) and 23.76 AVG (bat)

And he topped it off with a 50 while chasing in a world cup final. Pakistan wishes it has an all-rounder of that class on its team right now.

 

[Caved12]

BUMP

THis is what I was talking about. Had we not went for boundaries, rotated the strike, we were good enough to score 160+. MCG has big boundaries and its big risk to go for the boundaries. You can easily score 3 runs at MCG or steal 2 runs due to the ground being big.

Pakistan was scoring well when it was rotating strike, but failed when it went for boundries.

As usual, the team played for the visuals.

Look at what Harris was doing. He couldn't get the ball go to the fence because its a huge ground.

Thank you, Major! No one wants to talk about the stuff you mentioned in your post. It is because they would be proven wrong. I have been saying this for years that playoffs in T20s are never high scoring games (180 or above). Babar and Rizwan started listening to the experts and were trying to show more intent which failed both of them miserably. It was a perfect pitch for Babar and Rizwan to work those singles and doubles and then look for an odd boundary here and there. They both got a start as well, but then threw it away because they were not sure whether to play fast or just score 7 to 8 runs per over. That would have ensured that we saved wickets in hands and went ballistic in the last 8 to 10 overs to reach 160-170. 160 would have been a winning total in the conditions the match was played on yesterday. Our team should never try and copy others as we don't have that kind of batting talent and I know this because I have been watching Pakistan cricket since 1991. Don't change your style or strategies over night just because you are being critiized left right and center by every cricket pundit in this world. Know what your strengths are and then play accordingly. A game of cricket can be won in so many ways. Find your own formula. We seem to be confused all the time as to what batting approach we should take. We always talk about being aggressive, but then revert back to the same old style. This has been going on for 30 years now. Please make up your mind and stop with this madness and no we can't bat like England or Australia just in the matter of few months. Them guys changed their style and mentality ages ago and it took them years to get where they are now. In a game of cricket, it is very important that you assess the conditions and then play accordingly.

 

[Caved12]

If we are a bowling heavy team then we are a bowling heavy team. If we have been a bowling heavy team for the past 70 years, then know this that we will always have our bowling to lean on and this should make batting very easy. Hope you understand what I am talking about.

 

[rajulakhpati]

Bhai we cannot compare Buttler to any Pakistani batsman in the history of the game, let alone the mediocre batsmen in our current XI.

Lol sad but true.

 

[rajulakhpati]

To be fair, his peak was absolutely dominant in T20Is.

Between 2008 and 2010 - 13.73 AVG (bowling) and 23.76 AVG (bat)

And he topped it off with a 50 while chasing in a world cup final. Pakistan wishes it has an all-rounder of that class on its team right now.

Will give you that he was instrumental in that tournament, but that was literally the only time in his career he actually performed when it mattered. Gul was also amazing in that WC.