Pakistan vs Australia | 1st ODI | Sharjah | 28/08/12 | Pakistan Innings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Asad Shafiq >>>>>> tried and tested failure Malik.


This was my point exactly : )
 
Lol, even if he gets out next ball, Mitchell Johnson is Umar Akmal's bowling bunny.
 
50 partnership, off 45 balls. Aggressive stuff from two young gladiators.
 
The revital ads are torturing me. Meanwhile, Umar is playing beautifully.
 
Shafiq and Akmal play amazing when together. A great partnership for the future.
 
Wow look at the difference between the amount of balls it took to reach the first and second fifty as compared to the third fifty...
 
Umar Akmal is at his best when he has time to come in at the crease and build an innings, around the 25-30 over mark, that's why he should bat at at least No 4.

At No 6 he is wasted, coming in at the 40 over mark and being asked to slog. He can do more than slogging, just needs to curb the aggression as he can play needless shots and throw away starts at times. He definitely needs a run in the side higher up in the batting order though, he has a good record vs Australia.
 
shafiq is really coming on as a batsmen, has looked class today

his game looks much better than azhar ali
 
Asad probably has the best wrists in pakistan team at the moment , so silky. reminds me of a certain sachin tendulker.
 
Pakistan seem to have broken down the mental block that they had against Australia, full credit to Asad and Umar.
 
Boys playing very well and aggressively reminded me of yesteryears when we used to play fearless and attacking cricket..
 
If U. Akmal can keep his head till the end, Pakistan should score 270 plus which would be a winning score on this pitch.

Because, I feel the pitch has eased out. . Pakistan need to bowl well too.
 
Shows that stats aren't everything. Asad averaged 30 before this game in ODIs, but look how he's batting. :)
 
Aussies got two very young very pacy fast bowlers opening the bowling.. I wonder which other country used to do that..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top