No secret what I took issue with, because I wrote it. Contrary to your assertion that "his best format is/was FC, " I pointed out that "He's been the country's best limited overs bowler for some years now" Limited overs does not only include T20 cricket. Nor did I ever say anything about T20 cricket. Glad that is settled.
No secret with what you took issue with, because you quoted my post and put it in bold. Here it is again:
"Also he was never going to get selected for the PSL given he has never played a domestic t20 match. His best format is/was FC."
But let's say, for argument's sake, you are right and you "accidentally" highlighted the passage I wrote about the PSL and you were actually disagreeing with my statement that Sadaf's best format is FC, not LOIs.
So in your view, Sadaf's best format is limited overs and in fact you go so far as to say Sadaf is "the country's best limited overs bowler for some years now". Before we begin, I must take issue with your wording as by definition LOI includes T20 and given he has never played a domestic T20 your claim fails at the first hurdle. No problem, let's reword it to mean he is "the country's best List A bowler for some years now."
Now, to support this claim, you say he has topped the recent charts year on year. Let's deal with this claim first, before moving on to what his best format is. Perhaps you could clarify which
recent List A charts he has topped year on year?
Because I took a look at the most recent information and the stats don't back up your bold claim. He wasn't even selected for the 2017 Pakistan Cup so let's move on:
2016/2017 Regional One Day Cup:
9 wickets at an average of 22.55, S/R of 26 and and E/R of 5.2.
Not bad.
But he was the seventh highest wicket taker, not the first. To put that in context, this was a regional Cup and Sohail Tanvir (of all people!) topped the charts with 15 wickets, having played the same number of games. That's six more wickets. Incidentally, Tanvir's figures were significantly better: 11.33 average, S/R of 16.7 and E/R of 4.06.
OK, let's look at the next tournament.
2016/2017 Departmental One Day Cup:
13 wickets at an average of 26.53, S/R 29.3 and E/R of 5.41.
Again not bad.
But yet again he was not the highest wicket taker- rather he sits ninth on the list. To put that in context Faheem Ashraf topped the charts with 19 wickets, and all his stats are better (average, S/R and E/R). But now you will complain that Ashraf played two more games so it's an unfair comparison. Well, let's look at second on the list, Kamran Ghulam. He played the same number of games as Sadaf but ended up with 16 wickets, three more, with significantly better stats. But now you will complain that Kamran is a spinner, so it's an unfair comparison. OK then, let's look at number three on the list. It's Ahmed Bashir, who once again took more wickets with better stats, having played the same number of games (one to watch, by the way). But now you will complain that he is a right arm seamer and Sadaf is a left armer so the comparison doesn't work. But if you look down the list, you will see Zia Ul Haq and Rumman Raees also outperformed Sadaf. And so it goes on.
So it would be helpful if you could clarify which
recent tournament he topped year on year.
Moving on to the main point of disagreement. You claim that Sadaf's best format is obviously LO cricket, and I am therefore wrong to say he is better suited to FC cricket. In truth, I am puzzled by this claim. There are a number of Sadaf's loyalists on PP, and I think you are the only one who thinks his better format is LOs. But that is neither here nor there.
Now I could do a stats analysis but quite frankly I have spent enough time on this and there is an easier way to respond to this claim. Namely, the modern LO game is not suited to Sadaf. Why? Well bats have got bigger, boundaries have got smaller, wickets have become flatter and most importantly the death of (reverse) swing due to the introduction of two new balls in ODIs. That's before I mention the fact that the very notion of a tailender is fast disappearing in the shorter format.
None of this bodes well for Sadaf.
Why? Because he would totally be exposed. His biggest weapon, namely movement, is largely negated. And even if he managed to get some movement, his pace or lack thereof, would mean it was manageable. That combined with the favourable batting conditions mentioned above means he would be taken to the cleaners because his largest weaknesses would be exploited.
There is a reason why successful test bowlers in the mould (and I use that term broadly) of Sadaf have been able to carve out successful careers in tests but have proved to be absolute liabilities in the shorter format. I will leave you to work out who those players are. If you still disagree, kindly name me bowlers who, in the modern game, have succeeded despite having the same limitations Sadaf does.
All in all, I appreciate you are a Sadaf loyalist but you end up doing him harm than good by incessantly claiming Sadaf's format is clearly LOs.
All that aside, I would be interested to hear whose place you think he should take in the current ODI/T20 team.
