Javed Miandad after Pakistan's defeat in Bangalore 1996

[Buffet]

Waqar was a strike bowler He compensated for the fact he was expensive by taking wickets quicker and more often than any other bowlers of his era

You can't compensate if you are taking 1.5 wickets in 10 overs on average. You will lose more games than you will win for your team if you are expensive and picking 1.5 wickets in each match.

1.5 wickets distribution may look like some 4-5 wickets hauls, but the reason average comes to 1.5 wickets is because the vast majority of matches won't have more than 0 or 1 and you are expensive in the majority of matches.

You win ODI by scoring more than another team. You win the test by taking 20 wickets.

 

[Buffet]

Not saying that picking wickets won't help in ODI. Sure it will help, but since you are only allowed to bowl 10 overs, the value of SR value goes down a lot in ODI when compared to the test format.

 

[Savak]

Miandad was actually past it from 1992. He struggled in the 1992 WC but made full use of his experience. By the time the 1992 WC was over, barring a century in England and another in South Africa, he struggled badly as a batsmen due to which the selectors found it easy to drop him and axe him as captain.

It was a horrible decision to take a 39 year old cricketer who had hardly played any level of cricket since 1993 into such a high profile tournament. Miandad was hardly needed in the early matches, he came out to bat against England when the match was already won and then against NZ he was run out. When he finally came out to bat against India under pressure, he could not rise to the occasion and beat father time.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Bump. I've often heard that Pakistan were outright favourites for that World Cup but I've never seen any evidence for that. So I just checked the numbers.

Pakistan had the 4th highest W/L ratio in that World Cup cycle (92-96) after Australia, India and the Windies . In the 18 months leading up to the WC - they were again 4th after India, Australia and South Africa . SL and Windies were only slightly behind PAK so it was going to be highly competitive to get that SF spot.

And despite a decent W/L in the previous 18 months, Pakistan had not won a single bilateral or multilateral series in that period and had lost 2-1 to SL ,drawn 1-1 with Zimbabwe and 2-2 with NZ.

Basically only the likes of England, NZ and Zimbabwe had no chance of an SF qualification and Pakistan beat both England and NZ. But they lost to the only top 6 sides they met (SA and India)

 

[Justcrazy]

Bump. I've often heard that Pakistan were outright favourites for that World Cup but I've never seen any evidence for that. So I just checked the numbers.

Pakistan had the 4th highest W/L ratio in that World Cup cycle (92-96) after Australia, India and the Windies . In the 18 months leading up to the WC - they were again 4th after India, Australia and South Africa . SL and Windies were only slightly behind PAK so it was going to be highly competitive to get that SF spot.

And despite a decent W/L in the previous 18 months, Pakistan had not won a single bilateral or multilateral series in that period and had lost 2-1 to SL ,drawn 1-1 with Zimbabwe and 2-2 with NZ.

Basically only the likes of England, NZ and Zimbabwe had no chance of an SF qualification and Pakistan beat both England and NZ. But they lost to the only top 6 sides they met (SA and India)

Miandad wasted a crucial spot in the XI , if Pakistan had played a spin bowling batting all rounder instead , Pakistan would have been very strong ,

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Miandad wasted a crucial spot in the XI , if Pakistan had played a spin bowling batting all rounder instead , Pakistan would have been very strong ,

He did waste a spot but Pakistan had been playing without him in the period I mentioned and their results were not a whole lot better