Pakistan's batting approach in the ICC T20 World Cup Semi-Final against Australia

[DHONI183]

Now, there had been a lot of criticism of the way Pakistan´s openers had been batting in the initial overs. I had completely kept quiet on this issue because the only question stuck in my mind was, what would happen if both Babar and Rizwan get out early going for big shots? Yesterday, however, I did have a few questions, as my immediate reaction at the innings break was, 176 is not enough and that Pakistan were 10 to 15 runs short of what would´ve been an ideal score to defend; and remember that they got there by taking 15 runs off Starc in the 20th over. Here´s an interesting comparison with the way England went about things in the first Semi-Final on Wednesday.....

England´s innings never quite going and they were 52-2 in eight overs at one stage. Pakistan, on the other hand, lost their first wicket for 71, and it seemed throughout that Pakistan´s innings was going quite strong. Yet however, the difference between the two innings was merely of 10 runs! Fakhar played an absolute blinder, one of the most scintillating innings that I´ve watched, and yet there was merely a 10-run difference between the two innings referred, although they both belong to two different matches, I realise that.

Now yesterday, the openers batted really well in the Powerplay and were going at a run-rate which not many of us would´ve expected from them, I suppose. Pakistan were 47-0 at the end of it. Then, however, came a decisive phase of Pakistan´s innings: only 24 runs were scored in the four overs that followed as Pakistan were 71-1 after 10 overs, although the wicket was lost off the last ball of the 10th over. Now, I don´t necessarily mind a cautious approach if the match situation demands it, but can you afford to score 71 runs off 59 balls in a T20 when you haven´t even lost a wicket and have got hitters to come?

Here´s another stat to digest:the four overs of Maxwell and Mitchell Marsh, the weak link in Australia´s bowling, went for only 31 runs!

My aim is to highlight through different aspects how a slow and overly cautious batting approach reflects on the deeper aspects of the match. Merely pointing out a slow innings may not make you realise how it might´ve impacted the progress of the team through the different phases of the innings. It´s T20 cricket after all, and it is supposed to be played like that. One of the reasons behind Australia win yesterday was that they never compromised on their big-hitting despite losing wickets through their innings. Again, this is T20 cricket and big hits win you matches in the end. Minus Fakhar´s innings, the rest of the team made 108 runs off 91 balls!

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

39 off 34 on a pancake is criminal

A lot of people are talking about Hassan, Shaheen etc but no ones talking about the innings of Babar Azam. 39 off 34 balls is really bad on a road like that and could be a possible reason why Pakistan couldn’t defend. And another thing, please stop sugarcoating the defeat of Pakistan by being delusional optimistic. If Pakistan had the best bowling lineup in the tournament, they should have defended 50 in 4 overs and 20 in 2

 

[mastimasti]

All of this belies the basic fact that it is rare for any team to score between 150-160 batting first, 170 or more is a massive bonus. Sharjah might be a slightly better scoring ground but that's not saying much. These aren't the grounds of India where it's so flat you can get whatever score you like.

The situation is worse in evening games, specifically on a wearing pitch (this was the third game played on this pitch) when batting second is an advantage due to increased moisture.

For both Pakistan and England, they were the victims of circumstance more than anything else. Yes bad overs (Jordan), dropped catches (Hasan), poor selection (Hasan again) could play a part but close games were won due to the toss.

 

[ElRaja]

aus played a masterstroke, they recognised pak openers like to accumulate and got through their fifth bowling option really quickly trusting their main 4 would do the job in the death. aus out thought pakistan on that.

but its a t20 at the end of the day, and u cant really prepare for all eventualities. lets face it if warner didn't walk off this game could have been done and dusted long before.

paks batting approach needs revision, but it couldnt have ever happened on the day given how pak had played the whole tournament and aus just played better. this team is decent but it needs an x-factor batsman.

 

[Civil]

That 19th over was a killer ... We should have knocked off another 7-8 runs there.

In retrospect it wouldn't have been enough. Those scoops were the hit on is in the "everybody has a plan until they get hit" saying.

 

[Itachi]

In this tournament, batting first has always been a big disadvantage. So I wouldn't analyze too much on this.

 

[Buffet]

Now, there had been a lot of criticism of the way Pakistan´s openers had been batting in the initial overs. I had completely kept quiet on this issue because the only question stuck in my mind was, what would happen if both Babar and Rizwan get out early going for big shots? Yesterday, however, I did have a few questions, as my immediate reaction at the innings break was, 176 is not enough and that Pakistan were 10 to 15 runs short of what would´ve been an ideal score to defend; and remember that they got there by taking 15 runs off Starc in the 20th over. Here´s an interesting comparison with the way England went about things in the first Semi-Final on Wednesday.....

England´s innings never quite going and they were 52-2 in eight overs at one stage. Pakistan, on the other hand, lost their first wicket for 71, and it seemed throughout that Pakistan´s innings was going quite strong. Yet however, the difference between the two innings was merely of 10 runs! Fakhar played an absolute blinder, one of the most scintillating innings that I´ve watched, and yet there was merely a 10-run difference between the two innings referred, although they both belong to two different matches, I realise that.

Now yesterday, the openers batted really well in the Powerplay and were going at a run-rate which not many of us would´ve expected from them, I suppose. Pakistan were 47-0 at the end of it. Then, however, came a decisive phase of Pakistan´s innings: only 24 runs were scored in the four overs that followed as Pakistan were 71-1 after 10 overs, although the wicket was lost off the last ball of the 10th over. Now, I don´t necessarily mind a cautious approach if the match situation demands it, but can you afford to score 71 runs off 59 balls in a T20 when you haven´t even lost a wicket and have got hitters to come?

Here´s another stat to digest:the four overs of Maxwell and Mitchell Marsh, the weak link in Australia´s bowling, went for only 31 runs!

My aim is to highlight through different aspects how a slow and overly cautious batting approach reflects on the deeper aspects of the match. Merely pointing out a slow innings may not make you realise how it might´ve impacted the progress of the team through the different phases of the innings. It´s T20 cricket after all, and it is supposed to be played like that. One of the reasons behind Australia win yesterday was that they never compromised on their big-hitting despite losing wickets through their innings. Again, this is T20 cricket and big hits win you matches in the end. Minus Fakhar´s innings, the rest of the team made 108 runs off 91 balls!

This bold part sums up the problem nicely. Many fans will say that runs were enough or loss happened due to great hitting by Aus.

None of that is important in analyzing Pakistan not capitalizing on a great start. If you get to 50/0 in 6 overs then it's ridiculous to play run a ball and not lose wickets in the next 4-5 overs. You are far better off by scoring 15 runs extra even if you lose 2 wickets. Now if you were already 2-3 down then the situation would be different.

If not for great hitting by Fakhar in the last over, Pakistan was looking for 160 odd runs with so many wickets in their hands. If the machine has a horsepower of 100 then it's far better to operate it lose to that rather than operating it at 70 and thinking that output was good enough.

it is possible that you could still lose after putting 190. It is also possible that you win despite putting 130 runs. But it's not a great strategy to play run a ball for 4-5 over when you had such a great start and more importantly having all 10 wickets in hand.

 

[Mamoon]

The real culprit was Babar himself. Australia badly exposed his limitations.

39 (34) was criminal stuff on this wicket. He couldn’t get anything out of their spinners and his lack of power game and inventiveness was targeted by Australia.

He should have scored 10-15 runs more in the amount of deliveries that he faced, and that could have propelled Pakistan to a 190+ total which would have been match-winning.

Had Kohli played this knock, people like [MENTION=43051]Mobashir[/MENTION] would have made a thousand posts by now.

Babar let Pakistan down on the big occasion, both by his batting and also by his captaincy.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Pakistan has had a bowling heavy strategy throughout the tournament. Cant change the template for just one match without the players to do it.

The idea was always to get 10-15 runs above par and then defend with the bowling attack. I thought they reached about 10 above par.

Australia did some things really well yesterday. For once they got their batting matchups right. When Imad bowled to Marsh,he quickly got off strike so that Warner could attack him. Australia kept up with the rate by consistently counter attacking.

Secondly, dropping Wade to 7 was a masterstroke. He destroys genuine pace at a faster rate than any other international batter and he was being wasted earlier at 5, being forced to play spin. Last night, he came in at the death against pace and showed us what he is capable of.

 

[Fahdi]

Pakistan's issues against spin were badly exposed, that in my mind was a big difference between the two teams. Pakistan have had some issues against taking on spin throughout the tournament, Malik being the exception. There was also the mental aspect of the things, after the power play Babar and Rizwan simply didn't want to take a risk and lose a wicket and kept waiting for the loosener to come but it didn't come for a while and that's when the pressure got to Babar, he was forced to take a risk especially since Rizwan was still struggling. Just 10-12 more runs against the 7 overs of spin and the game could have been ours yet we only scored 42 off 42 balls - criminal! Babar and Rizwan are both to blame here, a bit more blame to Rizwan as he was really struggling at the start. Both guys need to do better, learn to be more inventive and open up other parts of the ground like Warner did.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Now, there had been a lot of criticism of the way Pakistan´s openers had been batting in the initial overs. I had completely kept quiet on this issue because the only question stuck in my mind was, what would happen if both Babar and Rizwan get out early going for big shots? Yesterday, however, I did have a few questions, as my immediate reaction at the innings break was, 176 is not enough and that Pakistan were 10 to 15 runs short of what would´ve been an ideal score to defend; and remember that they got there by taking 15 runs off Starc in the 20th over. Here´s an interesting comparison with the way England went about things in the first Semi-Final on Wednesday.....

England´s innings never quite going and they were 52-2 in eight overs at one stage. Pakistan, on the other hand, lost their first wicket for 71, and it seemed throughout that Pakistan´s innings was going quite strong. Yet however, the difference between the two innings was merely of 10 runs! Fakhar played an absolute blinder, one of the most scintillating innings that I´ve watched, and yet there was merely a 10-run difference between the two innings referred, although they both belong to two different matches, I realise that.

Now yesterday, the openers batted really well in the Powerplay and were going at a run-rate which not many of us would´ve expected from them, I suppose. Pakistan were 47-0 at the end of it. Then, however, came a decisive phase of Pakistan´s innings: only 24 runs were scored in the four overs that followed as Pakistan were 71-1 after 10 overs, although the wicket was lost off the last ball of the 10th over. Now, I don´t necessarily mind a cautious approach if the match situation demands it, but can you afford to score 71 runs off 59 balls in a T20 when you haven´t even lost a wicket and have got hitters to come?

Here´s another stat to digest:the four overs of Maxwell and Mitchell Marsh, the weak link in Australia´s bowling, went for only 31 runs!

My aim is to highlight through different aspects how a slow and overly cautious batting approach reflects on the deeper aspects of the match. Merely pointing out a slow innings may not make you realise how it might´ve impacted the progress of the team through the different phases of the innings. It´s T20 cricket after all, and it is supposed to be played like that. One of the reasons behind Australia win yesterday was that they never compromised on their big-hitting despite losing wickets through their innings. Again, this is T20 cricket and big hits win you matches in the end. Minus Fakhar´s innings, the rest of the team made 108 runs off 91 balls!

Myself, fight_club and Kroll, have been saying this WAY before the game.

The gist of it all is, there is a 50% chance of losing the toss.
And we NEVER planned for it.

We NEVER want to put 195+ on the board, we NEVER worked for it, and hence we NEVER got it.

Plain and simple.

Regardless of the missed run outs and regardless of the dropped catch, 176 was NEVER defendable in these conditions.

Lucky that Warner was given wrongly out and we stretched the game this far, otherwise, this would've been done and dusted by 17th over if Warner had stayed.

 

[oatmeal]

With a deep batting line up , Babar or Rizwan should have taken some more chances. With dew and batting getting easier its not always possible to choke good sides with a above average batting total

 

[transparent opacity]

We can say a lot of things in hindsight but the fact of the matter is Australia were 5 down for 98 and they won the match from there. The bowlers conceded 62 in four overs, the match was lost in the final half of the Australian batting.

 

[pillionrider]

Rizwan played a far worse innings than Babar. In the 12th over, he was going at run-a-ball, with two dropped catches behind him. He made up after this, but this making up often hides what the batsman cost the team when he's hung around for half the innings playing shot--a-ball and getting nothing much.

I might be biased, but I felt Babar covered up his poor batting by getting boundaries to ease the rising pressure and eventually got out after a string of singles and twos.

That said, I don't rate Babar too highly as a T20 player on an international scale.

 

[Kroll]

I thought the batting was really good, we're not going to outscore the England, Australian openers, India as well if they go with intent.

I think the real problem was the 19th over where we only scored 3 runs! Had we scored 10-15 runs off that over, we'd be in far better position to defend.

 

[Rana]

The real culprit was Babar himself. Australia badly exposed his limitations.

39 (34) was criminal stuff on this wicket. He couldn’t get anything out of their spinners and his lack of power game and inventiveness was targeted by Australia.

He should have scored 10-15 runs more in the amount of deliveries that he faced, and that could have propelled Pakistan to a 190+ total which would have been match-winning.

Had Kohli played this knock, people like [MENTION=43051]Mobashir[/MENTION] would have made a thousand posts by now.

Babar let Pakistan down on the big occasion, both by his batting and also by his captaincy.

Babar is the main culprit but Rizwan isn’t???

He scored 50 off 41. Then a few lusty blows to make up. Rizwan and Babar are equally below par T20 openers regardless of their stats!

 

[Colorblind Genius]

I thought the batting was really good, we're not going to outscore the England, Australian openers, India as well if they go with intent.

I think the real problem was the 19th over where we only scored 3 runs! Had we scored 10-15 runs off that over, we'd be in far better position to defend.

I think we also scored 5 runs in the 16th over which was a crime against Zampa. And a more crucial over.

Should've hit 'em out of the park at least 2 if not 3 times

 

[Snowflake]

Batting was not the issue. 175 on this pitch in a WC semifinal should be defended 9/10 times.

Babar's tactical errors while fielding and Hassan's poor day cost us.

I know some folks like to hate on Babar whatever the situation... Wouldn't worry to much about that

 

[Shoaibbtt]

The score was more than adequate despite that last good over of Cummins. It was a collective failure in the head with tactics.

 

[Kroll]

I think we also scored 5 runs in the 16th over which was a crime against Zampa. And a more crucial over.

Should've hit 'em out of the park at least 2 if not 3 times

Absolutely, minimum has to be 8 runs along with the big scores in each of the last 4 overs in a T20. Pakistan had wickets in hand, no excuses for that.

 

[castortroy]

Babar role is to bat through. He doesn't have the big hitting capability to demolition an attack. Others around him have to attack

 

[runrainy]

Babar is the main culprit but Rizwan isn’t???

He scored 50 off 41. Then a few lusty blows to make up. Rizwan and Babar are equally below par T20 openers regardless of their stats!

I know you could be found here after bashed in Anti-Rizwan post.
The guy has 130 SR , better that stoinis and Marsh and you are mumbling ifs and buts!
His T20 SR is 128.80, while
Rohit sharma's SR is 138, Kohli 137, T Dilshan 120 SR, Ross Taylor 122. ABD 133!

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Absolutely, minimum has to be 8 runs along with the big scores in each of the last 4 overs in a T20. Pakistan had wickets in hand, no excuses for that.

Yep, you had 9 wickets in hands in the 16th over. It's unforgiveable that you scored only 5 runs at such a crucial stage.

Then instead of Malik n Hafeez, they should've sent in Hassan Ali. He is the next big hitter in the team after Asif Ali who was BOUND to fail as we all know averages were gonna catch up with him.

 

[Usman Chadda]

Any score in retrospect would look small if you cannot defend 51 in 4 overs. We lost the plot in the end, lets move on people. Had Babar and Rizwan thrown their wickets away chasing a 100 in 10 overs, would have liked to see the jokers here criticize them both for moving away from the well established tactic of keeping wickets in hand.

We lost because we disintegrated under pressure, nothing more nothing less. Australia thrive on situations where they see a slight advantage in that regard, and unfortunately our players couldn’t cope with their ruthless counter attack.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

We were 20 short. But still 176 was defendable.

Needed to bowl more spin. Also we hurried that last over needlessly. Needed a breather after the drop we were still in it.

 

[castortroy]

Yep, you had 9 wickets in hands in the 16th over. It's unforgiveable that you scored only 5 runs at such a crucial stage.

Then instead of Malik n Hafeez, they should've sent in Hassan Ali. He is the next big hitter in the team after Asif Ali who was BOUND to fail as we all know averages were gonna catch up with him.

Swinging Blindly and eating up deliveries wouldn't have helped if you sent in hasan

 

[castortroy]

We were 20 short. But still 176 was defendable.

Needed to bowl more spin. Also we hurried that last over needlessly. Needed a breather after the drop we were still in it.

Spin is the only way to beat Australia. They will murder pace. No pak seamer in their history has that great of a record v Aus

 

[runrainy]

Why you guys don't accept the fact Aussie bowlers bowled well in middle over and 19th over by Cummins. It s batters vs bowlers guys. Not only batters will hit six.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Swinging Blindly and eating up deliveries wouldn't have helped if you sent in hasan

And what did Hafeez and Malik do instead?
You NEED to take risks in these situations. Only a few balls were left in a couple of overs. Malik and Hafeez can't score fast and big.
They play with a lot less risk, and you do NOT need such players at the very end.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

In this tournament, batting first has always been a big disadvantage. So I wouldn't analyze too much on this.

Yes, the timing of matches. Needed to be changed the dew factor made it very difficult for a team bowling second, if the match goes to the final overs. Only way a team batting first can win if they win well before the game comes to the final overs, in other words by a wide margin.
A close finish would always go in the favor of team batting second.

 

[Ashmal]

176 was defendable specially after Aussies were 96/5....bowlers, fielding lapses and tactical errors cost the game.

Batsmen did slow down in overs 7-10 and the 19th over was also a crucial miss....but still Pakistan had enough runs to win

 

[Grunge101]

I agree with the gist of the OP but then why were your expecting anything different??
It's Babar and Rizwan were talking about here, not Butler and Roy. Whilst they have the benefit of being a reliable opening pair, 71 off 10 is pretty much their upper limit. They play at SRs of 110-120, one usually stays till the death overs and tops it up to 130-135 with some hitting at the end.

Babar played as he usually does. If anything it was Rizwan who was particularly off color yesterday. Reached 30 at run a ball and then 50 off 41. And that after two dropped chances.Hes usually the one that Tees off after the 8th over or so while Babar stays the same.

 

[IMMY69]

Yes we could and perhaps should have scored ten or twenty runs more...
BUT we didn't lose the game because of our batting. It was the strange tactics in the field and poor execution by our fast bowlers that cost us the game.

 

[Smudger]

At one point Babar was 32 off 23. He missed a chance to really make it count and make something like 60 off 40 but he was too defensive. Needs to work on his mindset. Both Babar and Rizwan have to start hitting after getting 50 run partnership. Having said that the bowlers are to be blamed

 

[Syed1]

Nobody is talking about how we got just 3 runs of the 19th over, which I believe was the difference. The rate at which we were going and getting 12-15 off every over, had that over also followed the trend we would have ended up with 185-190. That is a monster score against a team of Australia's class. I have no problem with the approach. It suits our batting set up. If with our "approach" we are setting massive totals then problem does not seem to be with the approach.


We have tried with having hacks/bashers on the top and trying to go hell to leather, it just doesn't work for us. Babar and Rizwan's approach is exactly what we need. Set a platform and allow the likes to Fakhar and/or Asif to lay into the bowling.

 

[shah_1]

Difference betweem Australia and Pakistan batting approach from 6 to 10 overs

Australia lost two wicket yet they scored 37 runs from 6 to 10 overs. Smith was struggling but Warner kept the momentum going

Whereas we lost 1 wicket(that wicket was of the last ball of 10th over) and scored 24 runs only. Why do we care so much about conserving wicket when Pakistan has decent batting depth. Rizwan and Babar played at a similar rate, one had to take the initiative like Warner did.

Our method has to change, If Babar and Rizwan are to open together. Even against Scotland we scored 25 runs from 6 to 10 overs, Babar was unable to accelerate when Fakhar was struggling.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Why you guys don't accept the fact Aussie bowlers bowled well in middle over and 19th over by Cummins. It s batters vs bowlers guys. Not only batters will hit six.

I have come to think of it that Aussie bowlers purposely did not want to take the wickets in the mid overs as long as our batters were not blasting them.

This was a great strategy by the Aussies that we didn’t realize as we were not alert enough, and we were displaying our trademark match unawareness.

I mean, in the 16th over, you got 9 wickets in hand, and u score 5 runs, who wants to get your wicket and see your back? Not the Aussies.

 

[srh]

Batting was not the issue. 175 on this pitch in a WC semifinal should be defended 9/10 times.

Babar's tactical errors while fielding and Hassan's poor day cost us.

I know some folks like to hate on Babar whatever the situation... Wouldn't worry to much about that

Nah Batting was the main issue. Pakistan was short, the score was respectable but not winning. Fakhar actually saved Pakistan's blushes in batting by scoring 55 runs on 32 balls at 171.87 strike rate Otherwise Pakistan was looking to score 140 runs the way the openers were playing.

 

[Abdurmirr]

You don’t lose matches scoring 170+ in a semi final and than having our opposition 93/5 due to poor batting. You loose matches when you fail to take your chances, you loose matches when you fail to put any pressure on two batsmen who have had almost zero game time throughout the tournament, you lose matches when your captain fails to properly strategies and goes with the same bowlers who have proven to be rubbish in the death

 

[globalcitizen]

This has been discussed before and told many times. Or is that a point gets across only if a thread is created?

If batting first a score of 190 plus is needed, unless you have an outstanding bowling line up without any weak links.

Babar might have been consistent in tournament but he did not win any man of match awards. That means his runs were not actually reason pakistan was winning.

Pakistan should have studied the Australian approach in last few games. They mean business and are looking to take chances and maximise power plays. They look favorites now and I am loving it !!!

 

[cricketerB94]

Babar needs to show some intent of scoring runs faster. Rizwan at least shows some intent even though he has limitations in his game. But Babar, being a more fluent batsman needs to be more responsible about this. Sometimes, it actually feels like Babar is playing selfish cricket for his own achievements. I hope a new and professional coach will address these issues.

 

[PakLFC]

Babar was just too slow with his over cautious approach. The target against a team like Australia should have been 200. Even after 10 overs when we had lost no wickets I thought 70 odd was no where near enough. Pak should always keep the opposition in mind when being made or choosing to bat first, that did not seem to be the case yesterday. When after 10 overs the comparison with the opposition shows on screen we are mostly behind by a good many runs. Either Babar has to play much faster or drop to three letting a Fakhar open the innings. In the end overs most bowlers take a pelting such is the nature of the game, this does not make our bowlers poor. The Aussies were greatly helped by knowing what they were chasing. Look at how Warner plays then compare it to Babar to see a major problem we had with our slow coach captain.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

This has been discussed before and told many times. Or is that a point gets across only if a thread is created?

If batting first a score of 190 plus is needed, unless you have an outstanding bowling line up without any weak links.

Babar might have been consistent in tournament but he did not win any man of match awards. That means his runs were not actually reason pakistan was winning.

Pakistan should have studied the Australian approach in last few games. They mean business and are looking to take chances and maximise power plays. They look favorites now and I am loving it !!!

This.
The problem is, our dumb Think Tanks did not realize this.
They never wanted 190+, they never showed any intent to get 190+, they never worked for 190+, and hence they never got 190+.

Pakistan should consider themselves lucky that they stretched the match to the 19th over as they got lucky to get Warner's unearned wicket. Otherwise, if Warner had been there, this was over by the end of 17th over.

 

[Mamoon]

Babar is the main culprit but Rizwan isn’t???

He scored 50 off 41. Then a few lusty blows to make up. Rizwan and Babar are equally below par T20 openers regardless of their stats!

Both Babar and Rizwan have their limitations. However, in spite of their limitations, both are billion times better openers than the fat fixer.

Sharjeel will never play for Pakistan again and rightly so. You can continue to vouch for him if you wish, but you are flogging a dead horse.

 

[MenInG]

Shoaib Akhtar speaking on his YouTube:

"Fakhar Zaman is a good player and he played brilliantly against Australia but he does not rotate the strike in the middle overs. He remained stuck for 3-4 overs and was unable to rotate the strike. I think we should have scored 200 runs. Overall, Pakistan has done wonderfully well but I personally think that it could've been better"

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This is the 2nd highest chase ever at the DSC and the 1st was against a pop gun UAE attack.

This is not the fault of the batting. 170 + is a winning score here.

 

[PakLFC]

I would rather be 90-1 even 2 after 10 overs then 70-0. Take five overs to assess the conditions then one off the two openers tells his partner that lets seriously get on with it. Most teams bat deep in T20's, the chances they will be bowled out are slim. Forget overweight and unfit cheaters like Jamshed and Sharjeel, they were nothing special at all that we should cry over their absence. 160 will do against a Scotland, versus an Australia we need big runs coz our good attack will not be able to contain them.

 

[shah_1]

This is the 2nd highest chase ever at the DSC and the 1st was against a pop gun UAE attack.

This is not the fault of the batting. 170 + is a winning score here.

After the powerplay we had, the score was under par, anyone defending the approach and total is delusional.

We scored 28 runs in next five overs after powerplay is not acceptable at all. There is no point conserving wickets when you have Shadab at 8 and even Hasan Ali at 9.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

After the powerplay we had, the score was under par, anyone defending the approach and total is delusional.

We scored 28 runs in next five overs after powerplay is not acceptable at all. There is no point conserving wickets when you have Shadab at 8 and even Hasan Ali at 9.

Not defending the approach but I don't think Babar/Rizwan are capable of scoring faster than that against some pretty decent bowling in that phase.

The point is even the the eventually score was slightly above par and there's no way Aistrakia should have chased that.

 

[DHONI183]

Pakistan´s batting approach in the ICC T20 World Cup Semi-Final...

Yes, Hasan Ali did drop that catch, Shaheen got hit for three consecutive sixes, 52 or something were conceded in just three overs, I accept all that, but it´s T20 cricket, fellows, and bowlers having bad days in this format is something that every team should be prepared for. It´s your batting which is supposed to win you most of your matches. Despite all the other issues, the problem of the batting approach still has to be discussed, revised, and improved. You can´t bat like that in T20 cricket. There´s another T20 World Cup coming next autumn, and now is the time to improve in these areas.

I run the risk of repeating myself, but I beg those of you to re-read my post who disagree with me. Again, I don´t at all mind a cautious approach if there´s a need for what. However, from where did the need arise for such held back batting approach that you get to 47-0 in the six Powerplay overs and then score 24 off the next four overs to finish with 71-1 at the half-way mark? There were 10 wickets in hand, man! Also, what was the need to play out defensively the overs of Maxwell? 10 wickets in hand, boys, 10 wickets in hand. These are the key words.

 

[UzmanBeast]

The real culprit was Babar himself. Australia badly exposed his limitations.

39 (34) was criminal stuff on this wicket. He couldn’t get anything out of their spinners and his lack of power game and inventiveness was targeted by Australia.

He should have scored 10-15 runs more in the amount of deliveries that he faced, and that could have propelled Pakistan to a 190+ total which would have been match-winning.

Had Kohli played this knock, people like [MENTION=43051]Mobashir[/MENTION] would have made a thousand posts by now.

Babar let Pakistan down on the big occasion, both by his batting and also by his captaincy.

I partially agree with this.

Babar was going quite quickly in the powerplay by his own standards, but he started to slow down tremendously for reasons that remain unknown.

Against Maxwell, he never charged down the ground, and hoped that the part-timer would bowl a few loose deliveries to capitalize on. Maxwell bowled quite well, and didn't let Babar get those loose deliveries he was waiting for, and I believe that's where we started to get problems.

Rizwan was already struggling, but Babar should have taken the attack to the Australians.

I have also seen that in recent times, Babar Azam has had problems with spinners because of the lack of power game you mentioned.

Yet, I will give him credit for batting well throughout the tournament, just not stepping up when it mattered.

His captaincy was mostly alright in my opinion, sometimes you need your bowlers to do better and they didn't. I would have liked seeing Shoaib Malik bowl in this tournament to prepare for a situation where Hafeez couldn't capitalize, but that was not the case.

The bowlers need to make better plans in the death. I hope that they take lessons away from this and realize that their death bowling has cost us the tournament, because of no-balls, loose balls, and poor presence of mind when they fail to bowl to the field set.

 

[Kroll]

Yeah, need to go hard at the start, runs over preservation of wickets, its fine to be 2 or 3 down if you can get big runs on the board. Its only 20 overs, this needs to be factored in to the strategy.

 

[shamaan]

I think after the powerplay they started to slow down and that were they got stuck.neverthless they lost the game due to the fact catch.

 

[Cricketrenew]

Batting Approach from Rizwan and Baber was good felt Fakhar should have done more and been proactive. More Ramp shots and overall felt that Zampa got off very lightly. Pakistan could have got 25+ more runs with a more aggresive intelligent attitude againse Zampa. Batting against him was poor they were making him look like Murali.....

 

[Cricketrenew]

Yes, Hasan Ali did drop that catch, Shaheen got hit for three consecutive sixes, 52 or something were conceded in just three overs, I accept all that, but it´s T20 cricket, fellows, and bowlers having bad days in this format is something that every team should be prepared for. It´s your batting which is supposed to win you most of your matches. Despite all the other issues, the problem of the batting approach still has to be discussed, revised, and improved. You can´t bat like that in T20 cricket. There´s another T20 World Cup coming next autumn, and now is the time to improve in these areas.

I run the risk of repeating myself, but I beg those of you to re-read my post who disagree with me. Again, I don´t at all mind a cautious approach if there´s a need for what. However, from where did the need arise for such held back batting approach that you get to 47-0 in the six Powerplay overs and then score 24 off the next four overs to finish with 71-1 at the half-way mark? There were 10 wickets in hand, man! Also, what was the need to play out defensively the overs of Maxwell? 10 wickets in hand, boys, 10 wickets in hand. These are the key words.

Agree Entirely this is where the match was lost, the rest of the events in matches happen.