There's plenty to separate them already. Sarfraz had a better tour of England on his first trip than Malik and Hafeez had in their 19 and 15 years of international cricket. He has a superior record in ICC tournaments and that's as a wicketkeeper batsman not as two men pretending to be specialist batsmen at this stage of their careers.
Yes, a 'superior' record in ICC tournaments based on a hundred against an ATG attack of Ireland and a 49 against South Africa where more 80% of runs came against the spinners and the pies of de Villiers. It can be argued that Hafeez's all-round performance against the WI in the 2011 QF was superior, and surely, Malik's hundred against India in the 2009 Champions Trophy was better.
He could have made a statement in the Champions Trophy, but he was a bundle of nerves against Sri Lanka and was helped across the finish line by their fielders and Amir. In the final, he didn't back himself to make a bigger impact than Imad, who could only manage 2 boundaries in 21 deliveries, and cost Pakistan 10-15 runs.
Sarfraz had an average series in England where he could not cross a 50 in 7 innings. You can spin it any way you want, but he underperformed.
As I said, the difference between the three is marginal. You can make a case for any of them being better than the other two, but they are all at the same level. The fact that Sarfraz is a not a specialist batsman does not give him any leeway, when he is no Allan Knott or Jeff Dujon with the gloves. If he was, his below par batting would have been excused - however, he is a rubbish WK, and about 10 kilos overweight.
All of the innings mentioned were vital in the context of the match. His job is to play positive counterattacking innings to complement the slower paced batsmen above him, not construct long innings which is difficult given our weak tail over the years with Rahat Ali, Wahab Riaz, Imran Khan and Zulfiqar Babar for "support".
Any objective observer saw that we didn't win in England because Younis Khan couldn't find his form for three Tests; a collapse at Edgbaston from 257-2 in our 1st innings (where Sarfraz was unbeaten coincidentally); and our toothless bowling in England's 2nd innings. Nobody says Sarfraz was one of the major reasons why we didn't win except biased and agenda-driven posters like yourself, this is the first time I'm reading such criticism. Infact if anything, Sarfraz's stock was significantly raised after the England tour amongst all their pundits.
Under no 'context' is a batsman scoring 40s and throwing it away at crucial junctions appreciable. Would Sarfraz have harmed the team's chances by playing a longer innings and scoring more runs? Did he fail to convert his starts into big innings because it was not his job and because our tail was weak? Or did he fail to convert his starts because he wasn't good enough?
Let's analyze his performance in the England Test series, innings by innings:
First Test, first innings:
Sarfraz throws his wicket away for a paltry 25, leaving Pakistan at 310/7 (not exactly a great first innings score on a flat pitch) with Misbah on the other end. A poor innings.
First Test, second innings:
Scored an important 45, failed to protect the tail and got out before them, but it was an important effort. He also good a decent ball to get dismissed on.
Second Test, first innings:
Swung the bat like a mad man for 18 deliveries, getting out for 26 with Pakistan on the ropes. Misbah was on the other end, and Pakistan were in dire need of a big partnership. He didn't play the situation at all - it was an innings right up Afridi street.
Second Test, second innings:
Match was well and truly over by the time he arrived at the crease, but he got dismissed for 7.
Third Test, first innings:
A good, patient 46*. Helped us extend our lead.
Third Test, second innings:
Choked under pressure like the other batsmen. A 5 ball duck, perished to an out-swinger by playing away from his body.
Fourth Test, first innings:
Threw his wicket away yet again after scoring 44 runs. Pakistan had a good total on the board already, but Sarfraz failed to shield the tail and extend it further.
Fourth Test, second innings:
DNB
To summarize: he got starts in almost every innings, but he played poorly in the two pivotal innings that cost us the two defeats: 1st innings at Old Trafford, and 2nd innings at Edgbaston. It is ironic that you are accusing me of being an agenda-driven poster, when you are bending backwards to make Sarfraz's performance in the England Test series look good. It was not bad and it was not great - he was strictly average, and he failed in two key innings.
He did not enhance his reputation after the Test series; he enhanced his reputation after the ODI series. If Umar, Malik or Maqsood would have thrown their wickets away they way he did at Old Trafford and Edgbaston, you would have lashed out at their lack of temperament.
In our overseas Tests of 2016/17 in England, Australia, New Zealand and West Indies - he was our fourth best batsman yet you want him kicked out for who exactly ? Mohammad Rizwan who looks a club level batsman ? Umar and Kamran Akmal who have fitness issues themselves and couldn't last 5 days of a Test match ?
Who said that I want him to be kicked out? I have repeatedly said that it is a shame that he is our best option at the moment. You know you are down to bare bones when Sarfraz is the best WK batsman in the country, but it is what it is. He is not droppable at the moment, but that does not make him immune to criticism.
I've already said he's not the best against pace but you seem to watch matches in isolation and devoid of context.
There is no context to his struggles against pace other than his inability. His technique is shoddy, and he doesn't have the reflexes to play to genuine fast bowling.
In every match he's coming out to a crisis - in the last match he came out at 13-4 after 12 overs. The top and middle order are consuming so many dots that Sarfraz is under pressure to move the score along quickly and is losing his wicket. In any event, many batsmen would be troubled by a 150+kph pacer like Lockie Ferguson - that's the point of having a bowler like that in your team.
This sounds like a generic defense of Umar Akmal by an Umar Akmal fan. Who is the agenda-driven poster here? Sarfraz has been entirely responsible for his own dismissals, has nothing to do with his teammates.
Yes, and he worked hard in domestic cricket and came back a better player - even you admit was a pivotal part to our rise to #1 in the Test rankings between 2014-16.
Indeed he was. He got reselected when he was in his purple patch, and he scored three hundreds in three successive Test series. However, his performance has been nothing special since 2015. He did well in ODIs in 2016, but he has been mediocre for a while now.
Is that why he averages 48 in the top 5 and half that batting below 5 ? Is that why he averages 60 at a SR of 93 batting at 5 ?
Those averages are based on some minnow bashing (the common criticism against Malik and Hafeez), an innings against Australia in the UAE, and a wonderful series in England. He should not have been demoted after the England series, but he was clearly punching above his weight in that series. He was batting like a world class batsman which he is not. Even Kamran had a great series in England in 2010 as an opener, but that doesn't make him great.
Sarfraz's opening career ended when he got bounced out by Bangladesh on the slow Bangladeshi pitches after the World Cup, and he will not perform miracles at number 4/5 against pace-heavy teams. The problems with his batting run deeper than his batting position; he has essentially the same strengths and weaknesses as the likes of Hafeez and Malik.
That's why he should be complemented with two explosive openers and powerhitters between 6-9 who can play that role. His role should be to rotate strike through the middle overs and construct partnerships. Instead he's accommodating the sainted seniors Malik (who you are an ardent supporter of despite his mighty average in NZ of 11 yet have uttered not a single word of criticism) and Hafeez by pushing himself down to 6.
You can swap Sarfraz with Malik and Hafeez. The end result is not going to be much different. Sarfraz is not going to perform wonders at number 4/5 against explosive fast bowlers.
He's not a specialist batsman but in any case I've never compared him to his counterparts such as de Kock or Buttler. But with an ODI average of 38 and SR of 87 since the 2015 WC he MORE than holds his own as a wicketkeeper batsman by Pakistani standards and remains the best option we have.
Again, no one is suggesting that he should be dropped. It is our misfortune that we do not have a better WK batsman than him at the moment. Moreover, you have not compared him to his compatriots because it is embarrassing. Apart from Australia, all the big teams have WK batsmen in LOIs who wipe the floor with Sarfraz.
Just because we don't have a better option does not mean that we shouldn't pinpoint his mediocrity. A poor, unfit keeper and an average batsman. In addition, the worst player in the world to captain a team in all formats (excluding minnows and associates).
Anyhow, this debate is drawing out now and before we run in circles, we can agree on the fact that A) Sarfraz needs to improve his performance and his fitness and B) Hafeez needs to be phased out.
What we don't agree on is that Sarfraz will magically transform into a top batsman by changing his position. He has his shortcomings which will be exposed by quality pace attacks irrespective of where he bats. That is true for Malik and Hafeez as well, and that is why they are all pretty much at the same level, good or bad.
