Pakistan vs Sri Lanka - Replay of 2009?

[The_Odd_One]

Still remember when Pakistan won WT20 in 2009 and right after that they visited SL to lose test series 2-1 and ODI series 3-2. The results were not as shocking as the poor attitude of players and lack of heart to give a fight on the field.

Ironically, after winning the CT, Pakistan is again facing a new low by most probably getting whitewashed by an average at best Sri Lankan team.

What do you think is the reason? Do players/captain become complacent after winning a big tournament?

 

[Adil_94]

CT was a different format and in that tournament Pak had the unknown x factor Fakhar n everything just clicked after that SL game in the group stage.

Pak has lost YK and Misbah who in UAE especially were two batting giants for us. the others havent stepped up i.e Babar and Asad.

Shan isnt good enough and Sami isnt kicking on.

Sarfraz is still batting recklessly.

out of the top 7 only 2 are contributing and if thats the case u will always run into trouble. Unless those 2 are making daddy hundreds to cover the others flaws.

Garbage team selection with a lopsided bowling attack not suited to the conditions and also the likes of Amir not stepping up in these conditions.

 

[Markhor]

Its sad isn't it ?

Same thing happened after the 1992 WC win - after the famous England tour we went downhill from there instead of kicking on and reaching bigger heights.

All that momentum, goodwill and confidence after the miraculous Champions Trophy win gone to waste. Instead of using it as a springboard to greater success, we revert to mediocrity.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Its sad isn't it ?

Same thing happened after the 1992 WC win - after the famous England tour we went downhill from there instead of kicking on and reaching bigger heights.

All that momentum, goodwill and confidence after the miraculous Champions Trophy win gone to waste. Instead of using it as a springboard to greater success, we revert to mediocrity.

That was the point I was trying to make. Sarfraz and Aamir have been the biggest culprits in my opinion.

 

[Buffet]

Pakistan can still win this test and get away with 1-1.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Pakistan can still win this test and get away with 1-1.

Have you checked the scorecard?

The chances of Pakistan losing this one by an innings margin are higher than Pakistan winning this test.

 

[Mamoon]

Some people will not like it, but the truth is that all three of our tournament wins were quite flukey with a lot of luck involved. However, it never takes long for Pakistani fans to be brought back to Earth. In this case, it took a few months because of lack of cricket.

 

[mmkextreme_1]

Some people will not like it, but the truth is that all three of our tournament wins were quite flukey with a lot of luck involved. However, it never takes long for Pakistani fans to be brought back to Earth. In this case, it took a few months because of lack of cricket.

How was the CT win a fluke win? Pakistan only lost one game in the tournament.

Being underdogs doesn't always equate to "fluke" wins.

 

[saeed5646]

Some people will not like it, but the truth is that all three of our tournament wins were quite flukey with a lot of luck involved. However, it never takes long for Pakistani fans to be brought back to Earth. In this case, it took a few months because of lack of cricket.

thanks for the laugh i hope this fluke also happen to eng,SA,NZ, Who desperately need a icc events

 

[Mamoon]

How was the CT win a fluke win? Pakistan only lost one game in the tournament.

Being underdogs doesn't always equate to "fluke" wins.

We were lucky to make to the SF because Sri Lanka choked badly in the field. In the SF and the Final, we caught two superior sides on their bad days. England were walking over teams and they had to had an off day eventually. Similarly, India were playing flawless cricket till the final and they were also bound to have a bad game for once.

In the final itself, plenty of things went our way. Firstly, not winning the toss helped us because Sarfraz would most probably have opted to bowl first (to prevent Kohli from chasing) and things could have been different because the Indian batsmen may not have cracked without scoreboard pressure.

Our openers had a shaky start especially Fakhar and a lot of inside edges barely missed the stumps. They also took plenty of suicidal singles and nearly got themselves run out 2-3 times. Not to forget the Bumrah no-ball.

Plenty of things went our way in that tournament, and that is what generally happens when an underdog team wins the tournament.

 

[MMHS]

One reason I feel is emotion over logical call. Teams are built for a tournament - after that one should move on to next phase & bring new faces. For PAK, I have seen over aged, sell by date players carried forward for long, just because they might have won the cup or series.

 

[The_Odd_One]

We were lucky to make to the SF because Sri Lanka choked badly in the field. In the SF and the Final, we caught two superior sides on their bad days. England were walking over teams and they had to had an off day eventually. Similarly, India were playing flawless cricket till the final and they were also bound to have a bad game for once.

In the final itself, plenty of things went our way. Firstly, not winning the toss helped us because Sarfraz would most probably have opted to bowl first (to prevent Kohli from chasing) and things could have been different because the Indian batsmen may not have cracked without scoreboard pressure.

Our openers had a shaky start especially Fakhar and a lot of inside edges barely missed the stumps. They also took plenty of suicidal singles and nearly got themselves run out 2-3 times. Not to forget the Bumrah no-ball.

Plenty of things went our way in that tournament, and that is what generally happens when an underdog team wins the tournament.

India played flawless cricket till the final?

Who lost to SL then when SL chased 300+ for the loss of 3 wickets (2 were run-outs)?

India already had their bad day before the final.

England always seem to have bad days in ICC tournaments.

Come up with something at least logical next time.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

India played flawless cricket till the final?

Who lost to SL then when SL chased 300+ for the loss of 3 wickets (2 were run-outs)?

India already had their bad day before the final.

England always seem to have bad days in ICC tournaments.

Come up with something at least logical next time.

You forgot to mention the fact that England usually struggle when facing off against quality bowling lineups on pitches which are NOT belters.

 

[Mamoon]

India played flawless cricket till the final?

Who lost to SL then when SL chased 300+ for the loss of 3 wickets (2 were run-outs)?

India already had their bad day before the final.

England always seem to have bad days in ICC tournaments.

Come up with something at least logical next time.

Yes they lost against SL, but they dominated Pakistan, SA and Bangladesh from start to finish. After England, they were the most impressive team of the tournament up until the knockouts and are comfortably superior to us in all departments.

They would still beat us in a series 9/10 times and so will England.

 

[Hasan123]

We were lucky to make to the SF because Sri Lanka choked badly in the field. In the SF and the Final, we caught two superior sides on their bad days. England were walking over teams and they had to had an off day eventually. Similarly, India were playing flawless cricket till the final and they were also bound to have a bad game for once.

In the final itself, plenty of things went our way. Firstly, not winning the toss helped us because Sarfraz would most probably have opted to bowl first (to prevent Kohli from chasing) and things could have been different because the Indian batsmen may not have cracked without scoreboard pressure.

Our openers had a shaky start especially Fakhar and a lot of inside edges barely missed the stumps. They also took plenty of suicidal singles and nearly got themselves run out 2-3 times. Not to forget the Bumrah no-ball.

Plenty of things went our way in that tournament, and that is what generally happens when an underdog team wins the tournament.

England didn't have a bad day. There batsmen were exposed on a pitch that wasn't flat. Just give credit to Pakistan bhai.

 

[Mamoon]

England didn't have a bad day. There batsmen were exposed on a pitch that wasn't flat. Just give credit to Pakistan bhai.

The pitch wasn't as bad as England made it look. At one point they were 80/1 in 16 overs and were looking set to post 300+. However, Bairstow, Root and Morgan all threw their wickets away in quick succession and triggered a collapse. It happens once in a while, generally at least one of your three set batsmen will get a big score from a position like that.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

The pitch wasn't as bad as England made it look. At one point they were 80/1 in 16 overs and were looking set to post 300+. However, Bairstow, Root and Morgan all threw their wickets away in quick succession and triggered a collapse. It happens once in a while, generally at least one of your three set batsmen will get a big score from a position like that.

Mate, did you even bother reading Stokes figures that day. He scored 0 boundaries in 60-odd balls. That is very uncharacteristic of Stokes. Plus England bat very deep so should have atleast scored 250-odd. Credit to PAK bowlers for restricting them to 210-odd all out, that too without Amir.

 

[Hasan123]

The pitch wasn't as bad as England made it look. At one point they were 80/1 in 16 overs and were looking set to post 300+. However, Bairstow, Root and Morgan all threw their wickets away in quick succession and triggered a collapse. It happens once in a while, generally at least one of your three set batsmen will get a big score from a position like that.

The pitch wasn't easy to bat on. The new ball was coming onto the bat nicely which England took advantage of. They didn't adjust the game according to the pitch and were punished. I prefer to give credit to Pakistan rather than put it down to a bad day especially when England have always faltered in knockout games. It can't be a bad day if it's happening at most icc tournaments for England.

 

[Ab Fan]

England didn't had in them to win a 50 over ICC tournament.

I will always back Pakistan to win a ICC tournament match Vs likes of SA, Eng and NZ.

 

[Mamoon]

Mate, did you even bother reading Stokes figures that day. He scored 0 boundaries in 60-odd balls. That is very uncharacteristic of Stokes. Plus England bat very deep so should have atleast scored 250-odd. Credit to PAK bowlers for restricting them to 210-odd all out, that too without Amir.

When Stokes came onto bat, England were already struggling. He actually did the right thing by not taking any risks because had he got out swinging, England would have been 150 all out. 200+ actually gave them somewhat of a fighting chance, but there body-language in the field was poor. They were sell-shocked with what happened.

Yes Stokes struggled to hit the ball at the end of the innings, but like I said, it can happen on any given day to any given player.

Pakistan were simply better on the given day but England are the better team. Same goes for India, and when an underdog defeats two superior sides in consecutive matches, plenty of things have to go its way.

 

[Mamoon]

The pitch wasn't easy to bat on. The new ball was coming onto the bat nicely which England took advantage of. They didn't adjust the game according to the pitch and were punished. I prefer to give credit to Pakistan rather than put it down to a bad day especially when England have always faltered in knockout games. It can't be a bad day if it's happening at most icc tournaments for England.

Yes England have a problem with that, but they are a better side than us.

 

[Hasan123]

Yes England have a problem with that, but they are a better side than us.

Of course they are. Won't argue with that one.

 

[Ab Fan]

I have a feeling Pakistan will win this test and drew the test series 1-1.

However, if SL wins, it's a big achievement for these guys.

 

[DRsohail]

India played flawless cricket till the final?

Who lost to SL then when SL chased 300+ for the loss of 3 wickets (2 were run-outs)?

India already had their bad day before the final.

England always seem to have bad days in ICC tournaments.

Come up with something at least logical next time.

and the story goes on...let him say more..

 

[msb314]

We were lucky to make to the SF because Sri Lanka choked badly in the field. In the SF and the Final, we caught two superior sides on their bad days. England were walking over teams and they had to had an off day eventually. Similarly, India were playing flawless cricket till the final and they were also bound to have a bad game for once.

In the final itself, plenty of things went our way. Firstly, not winning the toss helped us because Sarfraz would most probably have opted to bowl first (to prevent Kohli from chasing) and things could have been different because the Indian batsmen may not have cracked without scoreboard pressure.

Our openers had a shaky start especially Fakhar and a lot of inside edges barely missed the stumps. They also took plenty of suicidal singles and nearly got themselves run out 2-3 times. Not to forget the Bumrah no-ball.

Plenty of things went our way in that tournament, and that is what generally happens when an underdog team wins the tournament.

^^ Not to mention Fakhar and Hafeez playing out of their skins that day and Rohit, Dhawan and Kohli all choking and falling for low scores.

I still can't believe it as I type it lol

 

[The_Odd_One]

When Stokes came onto bat, England were already struggling. He actually did the right thing by not taking any risks because had he got out swinging, England would have been 150 all out. 200+ actually gave them somewhat of a fighting chance, but there body-language in the field was poor. They were sell-shocked with what happened.

Yes Stokes struggled to hit the ball at the end of the innings, but like I said, it can happen on any given day to any given player.

Pakistan were simply better on the given day but England are the better team. Same goes for India, and when an underdog defeats two superior sides in consecutive matches, plenty of things have to go its way.

Yes, Stokes took them to 211 which was a defendable total in England where other teams were easily chasing 300+ scores. Stokes 50 SR innings gave England a fighting chance. After all, Pakistan huffed and puffed to chase 211 in the 49th over with only 1 wicket left.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Yes they lost against SL, but they dominated Pakistan, SA and Bangladesh from start to finish. After England, they were the most impressive team of the tournament up until the knockouts and are comfortably superior to us in all departments.

They would still beat us in a series 9/10 times and so will England.

What start to finish? They won 3 and lost 2 in that tournament. Pakistan lost 1 and won 4 including the last two one-sided matches which mattered the most.

SA has dominated group stages in almost all the world cups and will beat most of the teams 9/10 in bilaterals.

And who cares about England beating Pakistan in bilaterals?

 

[babajee]

We were lucky to make to the SF because Sri Lanka choked badly in the field. In the SF and the Final, we caught two superior sides on their bad days. England were walking over teams and they had to had an off day eventually. Similarly, India were playing flawless cricket till the final and they were also bound to have a bad game for once.

In the final itself, plenty of things went our way. Firstly, not winning the toss helped us because Sarfraz would most probably have opted to bowl first (to prevent Kohli from chasing) and things could have been different because the Indian batsmen may not have cracked without scoreboard pressure.

Our openers had a shaky start especially Fakhar and a lot of inside edges barely missed the stumps. They also took plenty of suicidal singles and nearly got themselves run out 2-3 times. Not to forget the Bumrah no-ball.

Plenty of things went our way in that tournament, and that is what generally happens when an underdog team wins the tournament.

You need luck in cricket bhai

 

[LegendAli]

We were lucky to make to the SF because Sri Lanka choked badly in the field. In the SF and the Final, we caught two superior sides on their bad days. England were walking over teams and they had to had an off day eventually. Similarly, India were playing flawless cricket till the final and they were also bound to have a bad game for once.

In the final itself, plenty of things went our way. Firstly, not winning the toss helped us because Sarfraz would most probably have opted to bowl first (to prevent Kohli from chasing) and things could have been different because the Indian batsmen may not have cracked without scoreboard pressure.

Our openers had a shaky start especially Fakhar and a lot of inside edges barely missed the stumps. They also took plenty of suicidal singles and nearly got themselves run out 2-3 times. Not to forget the Bumrah no-ball.

Plenty of things went our way in that tournament, and that is what generally happens when an underdog team wins the tournament.

You're a credible poster, the gimmick doesn't suit you.

Stop it.

 

[CricFan2012]

shubh shubh bolo

 

[Mamoon]

Yes, Stokes took them to 211 which was a defendable total in England where other teams were easily chasing 300+ scores. Stokes 50 SR innings gave England a fighting chance. After all, Pakistan huffed and puffed to chase 211 in the 49th over with only 1 wicket left.

What start to finish? They won 3 and lost 2 in that tournament. Pakistan lost 1 and won 4 including the last two one-sided matches which mattered the most.

SA has dominated group stages in almost all the world cups and will beat most of the teams 9/10 in bilaterals.

And who cares about England beating Pakistan in bilaterals?

As I said, they had an off day. Yes of course I would not trade the CT for any bilateral ODI series but I am simply stating the obvious that England is a superior ODI team, but we caught them on their bad day.

 

[Mamoon]

You need luck in cricket bhai

Yes obviously.

 

[Buffet]

Have you checked the scorecard?

The chances of Pakistan losing this one by an innings margin are higher than Pakistan winning this test.

Nah, Pakistan may have to chase around 300. Difficult, but not an impossible task.

 

[Mamoon]

You're a credible poster, the gimmick doesn't suit you.

Stop it.

I am simply stating facts here. We were not fancied to go all the way in the 92, 2009 and 2017. When an underdog team goes all the way, certain things have to fall in place and there is an element of luck involved. It is not limited to Pakistan of course - India 1983 and Sri Lanka 1996 are also good examples.

In the CT it has happened many times actually. NZ 2000 and WI 2004 especially. In fact India had a lucky escape in 2013 final when the rain turned a 50 over match into a T20, which gave India considerable advantage over an English side that they were not cut for T20 cricket. In those conditions in a full 50 over game, England would have been considerable favorites.

 

[New Yorker]

Some people will not like it, but the truth is that all three of our tournament wins were quite flukey with a lot of luck involved. However, it never takes long for Pakistani fans to be brought back to Earth. In this case, it took a few months because of lack of cricket.

Hard to conjure a more convincing win than the 2017 CT. Beat the best teams on offer, and that by whopping margins when it came to the crunch. The bowling was the best in tournament and it showed. Consistently strangled teams for 200 something scores when 300 was thought par. No one who watched the final would believe that Rohit Kohli and Dhawan had bad days. Amir bowled one of the great one day spells, as was universally recognized.

 

[Abdullah]

India played flawless cricket till the final?

Who lost to SL then when SL chased 300+ for the loss of 3 wickets (2 were run-outs)?

India already had their bad day before the final.

England always seem to have bad days in ICC tournaments.

Come up with something at least logical next time.

Its just normal rubbish from mamoon.
If pak had lost aga1ist SL he would be saying pakistan are crap. He wouldnt be saying that SL were lucky that pak ballsed up the chase despite being 100-1.
He just has to downplay pak all the time.
We rinsed eng and ind so bad in those 2 games that we were the deserving champs.

 

[LegendAli]

I am simply stating facts here. We were not fancied to go all the way in the 92, 2009 and 2017. When an underdog team goes all the way, certain things have to fall in place and there is an element of luck involved. It is not limited to Pakistan of course - India 1983 and Sri Lanka 1996 are also good examples.

In the CT it has happened many times actually. NZ 2000 and WI 2004 especially. In fact India had a lucky escape in 2013 final when the rain turned a 50 over match into a T20, which gave India considerable advantage over an English side that they were not cut for T20 cricket. In those conditions in a full 50 over game, England would have been considerable favorites.

You sure you're a Pakistani cricket fan?

 

[Mamoon]

You sure you're a Pakistani cricket fan.

My answer will not satisfy you. Hence, you are free to think what you want?

 

[Boi]

Except fixing and team infighting was at a high back then in 2009 with the revolt against YK. Don't think any of that business is going on right now but then again this is Pakistan cricket.