Hats off to the Pakistani batsmen in the 70s and early 80s for batting well in Australia

[Savak]

Australian pitches back then were extremely tough just like our batsmen found out on this tour of Australia and Australia also had a fearsome attack of Lillee and Thompson along with others. But the Pakistani batsmen like Majid Khan, Zaheer Abbas, Javed Miandad, Asif Iqbal, Mushtaq Muhammad, Mohsin Khan and co scored a decent amount of runs there and even posted scores of 400-500 in those series which is remarkable given the fact that modern day batsmen now have much better training and skill practice facilities in the form of bowling machines, arm guards and even have quality helmets.

Surely the current crop of players could have asked these guys as to how they did back then but hey, who wants to learn.

 

[PakLFC]

The aforementioned players were natural batsmen. Today our batsmen do not have the basic skills, patience and technique to occupy the crease. In test Cricket occupying the crease is the key factor to scoring heaps of runs. You can not teach certain skills to batsmen like stroke play and how to play different kinds of balls coz either you have it or not. Our batsmen do not have the ability to score heavily enough even if a Sachin Tendulkar or Viv Richards taught them. Mudassar Nazar once occupied the crease for nine hours to score the slowest ton in test Cricket, our current crop could never do that.

 

[munda_khi]

Zaheer scored only one hundred in Australia, 101 which is not a daddy hundred. On top of that it is a drawn match so we can call it useless hundred, PP rules.
Majid scored two hundreds in Australia. 158 in a lost match so don't count. 108 in a match Pakistan won but we all know that match was won by Sarfraz's 7-1 spell.
Mushtaq one hundred 121 again a useless one as we lost.
Miandad two hundreds both useless 129 (lost) and 131 (draw).
Mohsin two hundreds both useless as matches drawn.
Asif three hundreds 120 (won but that was Imran's match 12 wkts), 152N (draw), 134 (lost)

I am in no way saying these players are not pakistani greats but pakistan always have batting problem. we always run into collapses. if you remember good old days people curse same way zaheer abbas or majid khan that they have no patience and flash too much.

 

[Savak]

Zaheer scored only one hundred in Australia, 101 which is not a daddy hundred. On top of that it is a drawn match so we can call it useless hundred, PP rules.
Majid scored two hundreds in Australia. 158 in a lost match so don't count. 108 in a match Pakistan won but we all know that match was won by Sarfraz's 7-1 spell.
Mushtaq one hundred 121 again a useless one as we lost.
Miandad two hundreds both useless 129 (lost) and 131 (draw).
Mohsin two hundreds both useless as matches drawn.
Asif three hundreds 120 (won but that was Imran's match 12 wkts), 152N (draw), 134 (lost)

I am in no way saying these players are not pakistani greats but pakistan always have batting problem. we always run into collapses. if you remember good old days people curse same way zaheer abbas or majid khan that they have no patience and flash too much.

These are still not bad scores given that Australian wickets had a lot more pace, bounce and featured a peak Lillee and Thompson. If those guys could do it without the rapid advancement in protective gear, helmets, arm guards, training and practice facilities, the present crop have no excuses.

 

[Chokli]

4 or 5 years from now people will praise azhar ali for scoring a double in australia

 

[MMHS]

No surprise- they were at home in Australia & England.

 

[Hitman]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] Australian wickets were extremely difficult to bat on during the 70's and 80's?

 

[Abdullah719]

Zaheer scored only one hundred in Australia, 101 which is not a daddy hundred. On top of that it is a drawn match so we can call it useless hundred, PP rules.
Majid scored two hundreds in Australia. 158 in a lost match so don't count. 108 in a match Pakistan won but we all know that match was won by Sarfraz's 7-1 spell.
Mushtaq one hundred 121 again a useless one as we lost.
Miandad two hundreds both useless 129 (lost) and 131 (draw).
Mohsin two hundreds both useless as matches drawn.
Asif three hundreds 120 (won but that was Imran's match 12 wkts), 152N (draw), 134 (lost)

I am in no way saying these players are not pakistani greats but pakistan always have batting problem. we always run into collapses. if you remember good old days people curse same way zaheer abbas or majid khan that they have no patience and flash too much.

A hundred in a loss is not automatically useless, it depends on the context of when the runs were made.

For example, despite Australia scoring 600 in reply and Pakistan's consequent loss, most people who watched Azhar Ali's double hundred at Melbourne will rate it highly.

Now compare that to Asad Shafiq's top score, 137 against New Zealand where he was just hitting out because he had nothing to lose as New Zealand had taken a 340-run first-innings lead; the match was lost by an innings.

Hundreds in wins can also be less meaningful (wouldn't say useless) if they come in a situation where the batting team is already well on top. It all depends on the context of the innings.

 

[Dark_Horse]

A hundred in a loss is not automatically useless, it depends on the context of when the runs were made.

For example, despite Australia scoring 600 in reply and Pakistan's consequent loss, most people who watched Azhar Ali's double hundred at Melbourne will rate it highly.

Now compare that to Asad Shafiq's top score, 137 against New Zealand where he was just hitting out because he had nothing to lose as New Zealand had taken a 340-run first-innings lead; the match was lost by an innings.

Hundreds in wins can also be less meaningful (wouldn't say useless) if they come in a situation where the batting team is already well on top. It all depends on the context of the innings.

Exactly on the point, I always have noticed that the amount of runs Asad scores when the game is virtually gone instead if he had scored even 75% in the prior innings the game would have been a lot competitive. In Aus when we were out for sub 200 in day night test the game and series was over. Furthermore, the sa series was gone when our 3 batsman got out for ducks/lower score against SA in the second innings when Pakistan was at top 101-2. Had 2 of them scored 30 runs the entire preusse would have been on SA and we know they choke bigtime. SENA countries rarely give you chance when your are 1 down

 

[hadi123]

A hundred in a loss is not automatically useless, it depends on the context of when the runs were made.

For example, despite Australia scoring 600 in reply and Pakistan's consequent loss, most people who watched Azhar Ali's double hundred at Melbourne will rate it highly.

Now compare that to Asad Shafiq's top score, 137 against New Zealand where he was just hitting out because he had nothing to lose as New Zealand had taken a 340-run first-innings lead; the match was lost by an innings.

Hundreds in wins can also be less meaningful (wouldn't say useless) if they come in a situation where the batting team is already well on top. It all depends on the context of the innings.

Agreed, his innings in Sharjah was never going to have an impact. I still think he deserves credit for that innings in Australia, yes we lost, but in DN conditions against a great bowling attack that was still an amazing innings. I don't think many people would argue though that his best, SIGNIFICANT innings would have to be the century in the 4th Test against England. We were still 200 runs behind and we needed one huge partnership as we saw in the match before even a lead of 100 wasn't enough, yes his innings was overshadowed by YK, but I think Shafiq deserves a lot of credit for that innings too, that was a very good Test win. He also scored 131 in SL coming in at 86-4 when SL made a 1st innings score of 300, that contributed to a win too, but other than that, majority of his test centuries have either come in one sided wins or one sided losses. Guess he deserves credit for that century in SA too in 2013, coming in at a pressure situation, we had a great chance to win that match.

 

[Chokli]

Agreed, his innings in Sharjah was never going to have an impact. I still think he deserves credit for that innings in Australia, yes we lost, but in DN conditions against a great bowling attack that was still an amazing innings. I don't think many people would argue though that his best, SIGNIFICANT innings would have to be the century in the 4th Test against England. We were still 200 runs behind and we needed one huge partnership as we saw in the match before even a lead of 100 wasn't enough, yes his innings was overshadowed by YK, but I think Shafiq deserves a lot of credit for that innings too, that was a very good Test win. He also scored 131 in SL coming in at 86-4 when SL made a 1st innings score of 300, that contributed to a win too, but other than that, majority of his test centuries have either come in one sided wins or one sided losses. Guess he deserves credit for that century in SA too in 2013, coming in at a pressure situation, we had a great chance to win that match.

if you give someone enough chances without the pressure of getting dropped, they'll obviously play good innings here and there

the less said about shafiq in odis the better though.... 50+ innings and not one significant score

 

[jnaveen1980]

i doubt they were "extremely difficult". Srikkanth probably had the worst batting technique i have ever seen. But he played pretty good on pitches like Perth.Adelaid, Sydney.

 

[jnaveen1980]

You know what was difficult in the 70s,80s in Australia? Australian umpires lol

 

[big_gamer007]

Its because of county and Sheffield shield that west Indian, Pakistani, Indian players etc developed their game..

 

[munda_khi]

These are still not bad scores given that Australian wickets had a lot more pace, bounce and featured a peak Lillee and Thompson. If those guys could do it without the rapid advancement in protective gear, helmets, arm guards, training and practice facilities, the present crop have no excuses.

Thomson at his peak never played against pakistan. He get injured in first test 1976, broken shoulder and miss whole series. He again played in 1981 when he passed his peak and bowled as 3rd bowler after Lillee and Alderman.

 

[munda_khi]

A hundred in a loss is not automatically useless, it depends on the context of when the runs were made.

For example, despite Australia scoring 600 in reply and Pakistan's consequent loss, most people who watched Azhar Ali's double hundred at Melbourne will rate it highly.

Now compare that to Asad Shafiq's top score, 137 against New Zealand where he was just hitting out because he had nothing to lose as New Zealand had taken a 340-run first-innings lead; the match was lost by an innings.

Hundreds in wins can also be less meaningful (wouldn't say useless) if they come in a situation where the batting team is already well on top. It all depends on the context of the innings.

Actually I totally agrees with you that all hundreds in losing matches are not useless.

So lets see for Asad Shafiq's and tell me its soft runs.
137 against Australia Brisbane 2016.
Target 490 runs, he came in at 165-4 and leave at 449-9.
111 vs SA Cape Town 2013
First day of test, came in at 4-33 and leave at 259-6.

My point is, if he is not performing drop/bench him (which maybe true currently) and test replacements but please don't wipe out his good performances for the country. This goes for any player, be it Hafeez. Malik, Afridi, Misbah, etc etc.