I feel sad for Fawad, because Fawad's exact clones have played in the team for 18 years.
But, it's also a sad fact that players like Fawad, Malik etc. don't belong in the modern LOI game.
the idea that 'we already have' players 'like' fawad has always struck me as very very odd. a bit akin in
my mind to that old chestnut, 'do we really need another left arm pacer'?
well, you might, if he's a *better* left arm pacer.
fawad has played 38 ODIs so far and averages 40 + at SR 74. those stats are almost identical to
Inzi and only slightly worse than kumar sangakara, who had the same Ave and a SR of 78.
but they played odi's in another era, you will say.
well. to get it out of the way, let's start first let's compare him to what's 'already' available at home
(a peculiar kind of way of talking about selection when you think about it; if one selects on the basis
of a comparison of available talent, no player who has a reasonable number of international games
under their belt is ahead of the other in the queue. identifying a queue of successfully less desirable
contenders should be the *outcome* of the selection process, not the basis for it.)
now, sarfraz and malik and even babar are typically trotted out as examples of the kind of players that
we don't need more of. 'accumulators'
but what's a modern batsman, and how many of these are actually playing 'the modern game'? the
way some fans talk one would expect this fashionable creature, who undoubtedly has a power game
and can hit out when needed while also being a reliable constructor long innings, to be able to average
a SR of 100, preferably 120 SR.
In reality, and quite remarkably, the only player who plausibly comes close to this description that I
have come across is ABDV (SR 100) followed by de Kock (95) A modern legend like Kohli manages 90,
as does Amla, someone like Williamson 83. And these are the absolutely creme de la creme of the
'modern game.' True enough they can go faster than their ave SR when the conditions are right, but
so can many players.
This should settle the argument about Babar (SR 90, Ave 55) once and for all. Not surprisingly to some
of us, Sarfraz fares exceptionally well here too, with a SR of 88. Which, incidentally, means that he scores
faster on average than Chris Gayle. It is in other words absolutely criminal to play him at 6, behind a stroke making wonder like Hafeez (SR 75)
Now I haven't sat down and done a run down on the ave score and pace of scoring in ODI games in the past
five years, but it is my sense that 300 as average score still a very competitive mark. To get there you
don't need to go at more SR 100, on average. And there could plausibly be many paths to that kind of number.
The problem here is absolutely not an 'accumulator' like Babar or even Sarfraz, I'd take two more Babars
thank you very much. The problem is 1. a lack of big hitters with reasonable averages to play around
these accumulators, up front and in the tail. 2. players who can switch gears according to match situation,
ie being able to play two types of game. the problem of many pakistani batsmen is that they play 2 half
games, being unable to rotate effectively or hit out. fawad may not be this type but babar is 3. a selection/
management policy which makes half the team on any given day feel like they are batting to save their
place, rather than play according to the match situation.
Now could Fawad be one of these middle order accumulators? A SR of 74 is still a ways off someone
like Sarfraz. But it is not beyond question I think that he could up his game, if asked to perform a
certain role and given a real run. What was most impressive to me about last night's game was not
that he scored a century - that's done often enough in domestics - but the way he put his nose to the
grindstone when he felt that it was safe to switch gears. Between overs 28 and 49, facing 61 balls, he
played all of two dot balls and scored at a SR of 150+. There may be other contenders for that middle
spot, Haris among them, but with Malik getting on in years I'm not sure that Fawad is so many rungs
down the ladder.