Pakistan's strategy to mitigate issues with the poor middle-order must be commended

[Energy]

After having their backs against the wall due to the lack of brain, power, skill found in Iftikhar, Khushdil and Asif- Pakistan's management had to do things differently. They first tried them in different orders from 3, 4, 5 and 6 but to no avail. The players, especially Khushdil and more importantly Asif, was far too stupid to do anything irrespective of wherever he batted.

Anyway- splitting the batting with pinch hitters is a deliberate strategy that Pakistan have implied and the management and captain must be commended for this. They sensed that they had the luxury of not one, but two pinch hitters in their ranks and this is one of the best ways to utilise them. Both Nawaz and Shadab, are young, dynamic and offer three dimensional support to the team. As opposed to to pure batters, selected for only batting, who can't even average above 9.

There's lots of talk about how poor Pakistan is strategically, but very little when they get it right. Having Nawaz and Shadab dash in the middle ensures that either one, or both disrupt the opposition bowling with their slogging, and also reduces the run deficit for the rest of the batting to see through.

Well done Babar, and co.

 

[ZafarKhan2022]

Haider Ali has solved all issues

 

[Dr_Bassim]

After having their backs against the wall due to the lack of brain, power, skill found in Iftikhar, Khushdil and Asif- Pakistan's management had to do things differently. They first tried them in different orders from 3, 4, 5 and 6 but to no avail. The players, especially Khushdil and more importantly Asif, was far too stupid to do anything irrespective of wherever he batted.

Anyway- splitting the batting with pinch hitters is a deliberate strategy that Pakistan have implied and the management and captain must be commended for this. They sensed that they had the luxury of not one, but two pinch hitters in their ranks and this is one of the best ways to utilise them. Both Nawaz and Shadab, are young, dynamic and offer three dimensional support to the team. As opposed to to pure batters, selected for only batting, who can't even average above 9.

There's lots of talk about how poor Pakistan is strategically, but very little when they get it right. Having Nawaz and Shadab dash in the middle ensures that either one, or both disrupt the opposition bowling with their slogging, and also reduces the run deficit for the rest of the batting to see through.

Well done Babar, and co.

Nice idea.

But will it work when we hit 64/1 in 10 overs and have to chase 190?

I seriously doubt it.

Yes for a target of 160 to 170, I suppose Pakistan can pull it off even by playing slow on a good day if the middle order fires.

 

[Energy]

Nice idea.

But will it work when we hit 64/1 in 10 overs and have to chase 190?

I seriously doubt it.

Yes for a target of 160 to 170, I suppose Pakistan can pull it off even by playing slow on a good day if the middle order fires.

We're not usually 64/1 after 10. Please provide evidence to back this. It was a sticky wicket- what was Convoy's SR today?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

We're not usually 64/1 after 10. Please provide evidence to back this. It was a sticky wicket- what was Convoy's SR today?

NZ played poorly and Pakistan bowled very well in the last 4 overs, otherwise on a sticky wicket we were definitely chasing 180+ runs.

So what do you think Pakistan should be after 10 overs chasing around 190?

You tell me?

 

[Madplayer]

Credit where due. These are some good moves by the management in the nick of time. However, we still need to replace Asif and Khushdil with reliable bastmen. Also after the world cup, Iftikhar should also be replaced. And then it will be a perfect team. Just need three good batsmen to replace these three. Shan will dropped anyway.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

After having their backs against the wall due to the lack of brain, power, skill found in Iftikhar, Khushdil and Asif- Pakistan's management had to do things differently. They first tried them in different orders from 3, 4, 5 and 6 but to no avail. The players, especially Khushdil and more importantly Asif, was far too stupid to do anything irrespective of wherever he batted.

Anyway- splitting the batting with pinch hitters is a deliberate strategy that Pakistan have implied and the management and captain must be commended for this. They sensed that they had the luxury of not one, but two pinch hitters in their ranks and this is one of the best ways to utilise them. Both Nawaz and Shadab, are young, dynamic and offer three dimensional support to the team. As opposed to to pure batters, selected for only batting, who can't even average above 9.

There's lots of talk about how poor Pakistan is strategically, but very little when they get it right. Having Nawaz and Shadab dash in the middle ensures that either one, or both disrupt the opposition bowling with their slogging, and also reduces the run deficit for the rest of the batting to see through.

Well done Babar, and co.

Agree but why should we just stop here and do nothing else about this fragile middle order? Dont we know that T20 is all a batsmen game?

We need to continuously explore the new and smart ideas to come up with not only improvements in the weak links but also a plan B.

Why is Shan Masood untouchable? Why can’t he be sidelined to give someone else a chance?

What if our current strategy fails? Do we have a backup plan?

In all honesty, this extremely poor middle order does not make us look like a deserving world champions. If justice is done, this team should not go beyond the QF. That’s a harsh and a bitter fact.

 

[Bilal7]

Saqlain is a very good coach so this is not surprising. The man was hired by the ECB and they don't associate with people who don't know what they are doing.

 

[Bilal7]

Agree but why should we just stop here and do nothing else about this fragile middle order? Dont we know that T20 is all a batsmen game?

We need to continuously explore the new and smart ideas to come up with not only improvements in the weak links but also a plan B.

Why is Shan Masood untouchable? Why can’t he be sidelined to give someone else a chance?

What if our current strategy fails? Do we have a backup plan?

In all honesty, this extremely poor middle order does not make us look like a deserving world champions. If justice is done, this team should not go beyond the QF. That’s a harsh and a bitter fact.

Yes, I definitely trust the judgement of someone who thinks this world cup will have quarter finals.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Agree but why should we just stop here and do nothing else about this fragile middle order? Dont we know that T20 is all a batsmen game?

We need to continuously explore the new and smart ideas to come up with not only improvements in the weak links but also a plan B.

Why is Shan Masood untouchable? Why can’t he be sidelined to give someone else a chance?

What if our current strategy fails? Do we have a backup plan?

In all honesty, this extremely poor middle order does not make us look like a deserving world champions. If justice is done, this team should not go beyond the QF. That’s a harsh and a bitter fact.

Slightly disagree on this point.

If Pakistan goes to semi-finals, final or even wins the whole thing, you cannot argue its injustice.

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal usually win the title when Grand Slams are around. But there was a time when Wawrinka won the Grand Slam. Sometimes it just takes incredible tournament by a dark horse, to win the tournament.

I will make a bold claim here:

With the current team, if Pakistan can consistently limit the opposition teams to less than 170, we will win the entire championship, provided Pakistan is chasing each and every time.

Mark it now.

 

[Usman Chadda]

Agree but why should we just stop here and do nothing else about this fragile middle order? Dont we know that T20 is all a batsmen game?

We need to continuously explore the new and smart ideas to come up with not only improvements in the weak links but also a plan B.

Why is Shan Masood untouchable? Why can’t he be sidelined to give someone else a chance?

What if our current strategy fails? Do we have a backup plan?

In all honesty, this extremely poor middle order does not make us look like a deserving world champions. If justice is done, this team should not go beyond the QF. That’s a harsh and a bitter fact.

What can they do if this is the best lot they have?

Bring back Umar Akmal?

 

[Cric1234]

Yes, I definitely trust the judgement of someone who thinks this world cup will have quarter finals.

I definitely trust the judgement of someone who can defend a combined score of 49 of 43 balls today from the openers and not want to change this opening partnership.

Also somehow ignoring the repeated failures of the openers in big matches but bringing out glossy tables highlighting their greatness against Wesr Indies B and South Africa B.

 

[Energy]

NZ played poorly and Pakistan bowled very well in the last 4 overs, otherwise on a sticky wicket we were definitely chasing 180+ runs.

So what do you think Pakistan should be after 10 overs chasing around 190?

You tell me?

Pakistan's top 4 chases of 208/3 (WI), 205/1 (SA), 203/0 (Eng) and 189/6 (SA). Their 100 came up in 10.1, 9.6, 11.2 and 10.6 overs. Let's not forget the highest total by Pak of 232/6 (Eng) where Rizwan had 63 (153 SR) and Babar had 85 (173 SR)

So we do know who did bulk of scoring in all these games.

Now you may ask why we haven't chased high scores more often. There's an answer to that too- and it's not because Rizwan and Babar played 7.2327 and 11.6985 SR slowly. It's because they got out early and none of the other bakray qiston pe could manage to pull anything off.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Pakistan's top 4 chases of 208/3 (WI), 205/1 (SA), 203/0 (Eng) and 189/6 (SA). Their 100 came up in 10.1, 9.6, 11.2 and 10.6 overs. Let's not forget the highest total by Pak of 232/6 (Eng) where Rizwan had 63 (153 SR) and Babar had 85 (173 SR)

So we do know who did bulk of scoring in all these games.

Now you may ask why we haven't chased high scores more often. There's an answer to that too- and it's not because Rizwan and Babar played 7.2327 and 11.6985 SR slowly. It's because they got out early and none of the other bakray qiston pe could manage to pull anything off.

Don't go all stats on me.

Let's forget about what they have achieved.

Since you have agreed that their approach is correct to win the game with middle order hitting 100 from 10 every time, I asked you a simple question.

Where do you think they should be if they are chasing 190 in 10 overs?

 

[Usman Chadda]

Don't go all stats on me.

Let's forget about what they have achieved.

Since you have agreed that their approach is correct to win the game with middle order hitting 100 from 10 every time, I asked you a simple question.

Where do you think they should be if they are chasing 190 in 10 overs?

Where do you think they were when they were in 10 overs chasing 208, 205, 203 and 189?

 

[Shafi]

Saqlain is a very good coach so this is not surprising. The man was hired by the ECB and they don't associate with people who don't know what they are doing.

Not as a head coach!!! He was hired as a spin bowling coach.

 

[Cric1234]

Where do you think they were when they were in 10 overs chasing 208, 205, 203 and 189?

Who were the bowlers bowling to them in those matches?

Why do they keep failing in tournaments knockouts and series deciders?

 

[Energy]

Don't go all stats on me.

Let's forget about what they have achieved.

Since you have agreed that their approach is correct to win the game with middle order hitting 100 from 10 every time, I asked you a simple question.

Where do you think they should be if they are chasing 190 in 10 overs?

Defensive now but want to act macho? You're not playing the game to know about the ins and outs of run chases and what's needed each situation- you're sitting on a computer.

Refute my stats with evidence and then we'll talk.

 

[Usman Chadda]

Who were the bowlers bowling to them in those matches?

Why do they keep failing in tournaments knockouts and series deciders?

How many teams do successfully chase 190+ in tournament knockouts?

Actually, how many times have these ‘blockbuster’ teams chased down 190+ in the history of T20 cricket in tournament knockouts?

Stats please, let’s see this yardstick

 

[Cric1234]

Defensive now but want to act macho? You're not playing the game to know about the ins and outs of run chases and what's needed each situation- you're sitting on a computer.

Refute my stats with evidence and then we'll talk.

Those chases were against weak bowling second string bowlers on flat wickets ideal for our openers the failure rate is 99% against better bowling especially in series deciders and knockouts.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Where do you think they were when they were in 10 overs chasing 208, 205, 203 and 189?

I quite know where they were.

Am I criticizing them for being there?

Its the OP who has claimed that the approach they have is "perfect" for chasing 190 or 200 runs.

 

[Usman Chadda]

I quite know where they were.

Am I criticizing them for being there?

Its the OP who has claimed that the approach they have is "perfect" for chasing 190 or 200 runs.

Tell us, where were they in 10 overs?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Defensive now but want to act macho? You're not playing the game to know about the ins and outs of run chases and what's needed each situation- you're sitting on a computer.

Refute my stats with evidence and then we'll talk.

Another red herring, eh?

Dude, you are the one who claimed that the "approach" Babar and Rizwan have is perfect to achieve success and hitters can hit 10 an over to help the team reach their target.

I asked how much they should be to chase 190 in 10 overs?

And you came back with me stats showing they were actually playing quite well for those chases and not depending on middle order to win them the games !!!

So, now I am confused.

Either the approach they had for 190 or 200 chases is the correct approach or the current one where they want the middle order to chase at 10 an over after laying platform is correct approach?

Which one do you think is the correct one?

 

[Energy]

How many teams do successfully chase 190+ in tournament knockouts?

Actually, how many times have these ‘blockbuster’ teams chased down 190+ in the history of T20 cricket in tournament knockouts?

Stats please, let’s see this yardstick

18 times teams have successfully chased 200+ in T20I history. Pakistan 3 times. In Pakistan, 2 batters in particular pulling it off themselves.

But they are not good enough. And popeye from cuckoo land is better than them.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Tell us, where were they in 10 overs?

They were going at around 10 an over and well within range.

They were not depending on the middle order to bail them out and score at 10 an over to win the game.

Full credit to them.

Now, tell me which approach is correct?

 

[Energy]

Another red herring, eh?

Dude, you are the one who claimed that the "approach" Babar and Rizwan have is perfect to achieve success and hitters can hit 10 an over to help the team reach their target.

I asked how much they should be to chase 190 in 10 overs?

And you came back with me stats showing they were actually playing quite well for those chases and not depending on middle order to win them the games !!!

So, now I am confused.

Either the approach they had for 190 or 200 chases is the correct approach or the current one where they want the middle order to chase at 10 an over after laying platform is correct approach?

Which one do you think is the correct one?

Read the opening post again and find me where it's mentioned the middle order to chase 10rpo is part of the Pakistan's strategy. If you find it, then come back again.

 

[Cric1234]

How many teams do successfully chase 190+ in tournament knockouts?

Actually, how many times have these ‘blockbuster’ teams chased down 190+ in the history of T20 cricket in tournament knockouts?

Stats please, let’s see this yardstick

You didn’t answer the question they actually were chasing 170 against Sri Lanka in the Asia Cup and 164 today should be easy for the best opening batsmen.

 

[Energy]

I quite know where they were.

Am I criticizing them for being there?

Its the OP who has claimed that the approach they have is "perfect" for chasing 190 or 200 runs.

Where is this mentioned? Are you reading what everyone else is?

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Read the opening post again and find me where it's mentioned the middle order to chase 10rpo is part of the Pakistan's strategy. If you find it, then come back again.

The pinch hitter role by itself implies that the openers will play it safe and Pakistan have found two pinch hitters to up the rate after the mess created by openers.

 

[Usman Chadda]

They were going at around 10 an over and well within range.

They were not depending on the middle order to bail them out and score at 10 an over to win the game.

Full credit to them.

Now, tell me which approach is correct?

These two are world class enough to assess the conditions and play accordingly. You can’t expect them to go at 10 RPO every game, no team does that in international cricket.

Tell me, how many times have the ‘big’ teams chased down 190-200+ in the recent past? I’m sure Pakistan is up there, thanks to these two.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Where is this mentioned? Are you reading what everyone else is?

I am following your "implied reasoning".

If everyone plays at the same positive pace, we wouldn't need any pinch hitters to bail us out.

But clearly, that would be flawed.

Because Babar and Rizwan get the free pass to play how they want.

 

[Usman Chadda]

You didn’t answer the question they actually were chasing 170 against Sri Lanka in the Asia Cup and 164 today should be easy for the best opening batsmen.

Two games, the sample size is too small to make a conclusion.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

These two are world class enough to assess the conditions and play accordingly. You can’t expect them to go at 10 RPO every game, no team does that in international cricket.

Tell me, how many times have the ‘big’ teams chased down 190-200+ in the recent past? I’m sure Pakistan is up there, thanks to these two.

Yaar, I don't want to rest on past laurels.

All I am seeing is that Nawaz has bailed us out twice in 2 games. Especially Rizwan. Yet you are supporting the same approach.

If they play at 10 per over chasing 200, I am not mad to criticize them.

 

[Cric1234]

Two games, the sample size is too small to make a conclusion.

4 games Australia Sri Lanka in tournaments and New Zealand England in recent series deciders why couldn’t they play like they did against West Indies B and South Africa B?

Their failure rate is 100% against any team playing its main bowlers lets see what happens at the World Cup.

 

[Usman Chadda]

Yaar, I don't want to rest on past laurels.

All I am seeing is that Nawaz has bailed us out twice in 2 games. Especially Rizwan. Yet you are supporting the same approach.

If they play at 10 per over chasing 200, I am not mad to criticize them.

Any sample size should include the recent past, or should it not? These chases are in the past two years.

The best teams in the world with all the power hitters at their disposal struggle to follow that template, as it’s not easy to do in international cricket consistently.

 

[Usman Chadda]

4 games Australia Sri Lanka in tournaments and New Zealand England in recent series deciders why couldn’t they play like they did against West Indies B and South Africa B?

Their failure rate is 100% against any team playing its main bowlers lets see what happens at the World Cup.

India wasn’t playing their main bowling attack in the previous World Cup, or do you not consider them a ‘main’ team?

 

[Cric1234]

India wasn’t playing their main bowling attack in the previous World Cup, or do you not consider them a ‘main’ team?

I was talking about knockouts and series deciders but since you brought up the group stages yes that one match they played well but in the other matches they mostly failed to make an impact even then the success rate is very low.

How much more are you going to push this without accepting Babar and Rizwan don’t win matches 9 times out of 10 other than against reserve bowling attacks.

 

[Usman Chadda]

I was talking about knockouts and series deciders but since you brought up the group stages yes that one match they played well but in the other matches they mostly failed to make an impact even then the success rate is very low.

How much more are you going to push this without accepting Babar and Rizwan don’t win matches 9 times out of 10 other than against reserve bowling attacks.

Rizwan made a 60+ in that knockout game against Australia, was the perfectly foil for Fakhar to explode at the other end.

Regardless, the sample size is too small to jump to conclusions. They haven’t failed 9/10 times, they have failed 3/4 times going by your lofty standards aswell.

How much more are you going to jump through hoops to blemish Babar and Rizwan as an opening partnership?

 

[Cric1234]

Rizwan made a 60+ in that knockout game against Australia, was the perfectly foil for Fakhar to explode at the other end.

Regardless, the sample size is too small to jump to conclusions. They haven’t failed 9/10 times, they have failed 3/4 times going by your lofty standards aswell.

How much more are you going to jump through hoops to blemish Babar and Rizwan as an opening partnership?

No it wasn’t a good innings the combined output of Babar Rizwan was well below what was required against Australia are you just going to somehow find a way to make them look good or accept they fail to turn up when needed.

4 times is too many how many more do you want 10 20 how many more failures before a change happens when they are the more experienced batsmen you expect a lot more not always Nawaz and Haider will make up for their slow starts.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

The openers don't help by playing 90s ODI that 2022 England put to shame in Test.

They take up too many overs with not much return. 55-2 (6) is better than 60-0 (10)

 

[Usman Chadda]

No it wasn’t a good innings the combined output of Babar Rizwan was well below what was required against Australia are you just going to somehow find a way to make them look good or accept they fail to turn up when needed.

4 times is too many how many more do you want 10 20 how many more failures before a change happens when they are the more experienced batsmen you expect a lot more not always Nawaz and Haider will make up for their slow starts.

You yourself set the bar with ‘they fail 9 out of 10 times against good attacks’, three times is too small a sample size.

Rizwan played quite well in the game, as I said he held up one end while scoring at a decent rate while Fakhar took on the Australian bowlers at the other end.

Nawaz and Haider have done this once, these two have been winning games for Pakistan since the past two years. As I said, stop jumping through hoops to justify the mindset you have. For the first time in ages, we have had a strategy that is working for us and fans who want the likes of Sharjeel and Fakhar at the top forget the horrid period we endured before Misbah made the change to have Babar and Rizwan together at the top.

 

[Cric1234]

You yourself set the bar with ‘they fail 9 out of 10 times against good attacks’, three times is too small a sample size.

Rizwan played quite well in the game, as I said he held up one end while scoring at a decent rate while Fakhar took on the Australian bowlers at the other end.

Nawaz and Haider have done this once, these two have been winning games for Pakistan since the past two years. As I said, stop jumping through hoops to justify the mindset you have. For the first time in ages, we have had a strategy that is working for us and fans who want the likes of Sharjeel and Fakhar at the top forget the horrid period we endured before Misbah made the change to have Babar and Rizwan together at the top.

In the other thread you said Willey and Curran were England’s best bowlers after Babar and Rizwan chased 200 but twice against Wood and Topley they failed to do it I think I can see who’s trying to justify what here.

Again it’s too small a sample size when they keep failing in the big matches exactly how many more chances would you give them?

Not to worry when they play West Indies B and chase a big score we can celebrate their greatness again while they keep playing too slow when it matters and are consistently exposed.

 

[Markhor]

I definitely trust the judgement of someone who can defend a combined score of 49 of 43 balls today from the openers and not want to change this opening partnership.

Also somehow ignoring the repeated failures of the openers in big matches but bringing out glossy tables highlighting their greatness against Wesr Indies B and South Africa B.

Perfectly put ! Today was another example of our openers batting too sluggishly in a crunch game.

People can quote innings against awful attacks in pressureless bilaterals all they like, but you cannot credibly defend an approach where your openers start with a RRR of 8 and leave the crease with the RRR at 10 !

We've occasionally seen this pair bat at a much higher tempo, so why do they retreat into shells in games that matter ? If we had a proper head coach instead of a roadside soothsayer, these two would receive a stern talking to.

 

[Rana]

If the openers go (which they should), where else will they bat?

Only number 3 is a spot one of these two aunties can fit in

 

[PakPremi]

In the other thread you said Willey and Curran were England’s best bowlers after Babar and Rizwan chased 200 but twice against Wood and Topley they failed to do it I think I can see who’s trying to justify what here.

Babar won the match when Topley played without Woods. As I said just because a good bowler in good form got Babar out twice does not mean he cannot play good fast bowlers and has not scored against such bowlers.

 

[zacattakk]

They have made good use of the resources they have. Recognized Shadab and Nawazs potential and gave them a go. I have been critical of Saqlain and Babar but credit to them on this point. Even more to Nawaz who has now pulled off 3 hugely impactful innings in about as many opportunities up the order.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

There are pretty good hitters, they do not get enough time frequently because of top 3. Today you won because of Nawaz not RizBab

Instead of trying to find a solve, split the opening and make sure these hitters are floated even as an opener, it's ok to be 90/3 at the end of 10 overs than 70/1

 

[IMMY69]

You didn’t answer the question they actually were chasing 170 against Sri Lanka in the Asia Cup and 164 today should be easy for the best opening batsmen.

I think you need to stop with the nonsense of chasing 170 against Sri Lanka.

Energy is right when he says that there are far too many people who have zero clue about cricket and are just sitting in their arm chairs spoting nonsense. However there is another category too. This that actually have played cricket but are so blinded by hate that they ignore facts and keep coming out with rubbish.

Now lets go back to that 170 chase against Sri Lanka.

What was Sri Lanka's score after 8 overs? How many wickets had they lost? What should they have scored had we bowled and fielded better and taken the right decisions on the field?

Should we have been chasing 170?

Our display when replying to that innings is not about openers slow strike rates. The game has far more nuisances then "Oh Rizwan batted slowly, pathetic strike rates etc etc".

Similarly in today's game, the wicket was slow and only got slower and we feel behind due to good bowling from Bracewel. We could have collapsed at that point or taken the game further, keeping wickets in hand and then exploding against the other bowlers which we actually did in the end.

When the wicket is good our top order usually scores at a very decent click and when you have the likes of Fakhar in form we usually end up with good scores or chase down anything that is in front of us.

These are irrefutable facts and are for those that don't really understand the game. To the blind haters, nothing anyone says is going to change their views.

 

[IMMY69]

Perfectly put ! Today was another example of our openers batting too sluggishly in a crunch game.

People can quote innings against awful attacks in pressureless bilaterals all they like, but you cannot credibly defend an approach where your openers start with a RRR of 8 and leave the crease with the RRR at 10 !

We've occasionally seen this pair bat at a much higher tempo, so why do they retreat into shells in games that matter ? If we had a proper head coach instead of a roadside soothsayer, these two would receive a stern talking to.

Because the wicket is not always the same, nor is the bowling.
That's the beauty of the game.

 

[GLORY OF '92]

Slightly disagree on this point.

If Pakistan goes to semi-finals, final or even wins the whole thing, you cannot argue its injustice.

Federer, Djokovic and Nadal usually win the title when Grand Slams are around. But there was a time when Wawrinka won the Grand Slam. Sometimes it just takes incredible tournament by a dark horse, to win the tournament.

I will make a bold claim here:

With the current team, if Pakistan can consistently limit the opposition teams to less than 170, we will win the entire championship, provided Pakistan is chasing each and every time.

Mark it now.

Lol we can't chase 150 to win a knock out ever mark my words

 

[zarak]

NZ played poorly and Pakistan bowled very well in the last 4 overs, otherwise on a sticky wicket we were definitely chasing 180+ runs.

So what do you think Pakistan should be after 10 overs chasing around 190?

You tell me?

85+ with minimal wickets. Most days Babar and riz deliver this

 

[Usman Chadda]

In the other thread you said Willey and Curran were England’s best bowlers after Babar and Rizwan chased 200 but twice against Wood and Topley they failed to do it I think I can see who’s trying to justify what here.

Again it’s too small a sample size when they keep failing in the big matches exactly how many more chances would you give them?

Not to worry when they play West Indies B and chase a big score we can celebrate their greatness again while they keep playing too slow when it matters and are consistently exposed.

How many teams have chased 200+ multiple times in a single series? When teams such as England, Australia or even India with their power hitters and dynamic batters struggle to do that, you are expecting two stroke-makers to chase down 200 multiple times?

Willey and Curran are regular members of the England team, so what did I say wrong there?

Once again, the sample size is too small. It’s just three games (not four as you want to somehow blame RizBabar for the semi-final too)

I’m wasting my time debating cricket with someone who considers Kamran Akmal or Imran Nazir ‘match-winners’

 

[Energy]

Because the wicket is not always the same, nor is the bowling.
That's the beauty of the game.

This is a very important point. Wicket type, bowler in the middle of a good spell, ball holding up, turning etc are all part of situations batters have to deal with in their innings. It's a surprise that this isn't understood or valued and the madness has resulted in meaningless stats such as impact factor and what not.

This has led many naïve fans to believe that cricket is now played on the computer rather than on the field.

NZ couldn't get going today. England batters are grinding it out in the match against Aussies just now. They're 81/2 in 10 overs. Very normal. England made 170 odd the other day. Australia could not chase it.

 

[Maliq_Mudasir]

Nice idea.

But will it work when we hit 64/1 in 10 overs and have to chase 190?

I seriously doubt it.

Yes for a target of 160 to 170, I suppose Pakistan can pull it off even by playing slow on a good day if the middle order fires.

In the end it was 12 balls 11 runs, had it been 12 balls 25 runs, Pakistan would have still won it.

 

[PakPremi]

[MENTION=36958]Energy[/MENTION] is right many posters here are actually computer cricket players, unaware of varying conditions, different pressures, form of players, specific strengths of teams, and yes even luck your edge can lead to your dismissal or a unitended boundary.
There are problems with this team and it will not go too far,but its not because of the openers or their style of play but lack of quality batsmen following them. Nawaz will kot be able to bail out the middle order every time so others need to improve fast and contribute a lot more. Having seen enough of Shan, Khushdil, Iftikhar bat to know they will not make big contributions, and Asif is complete waste of position in the team. Pakistan only hope is for Fakhar to find form and help the openers.If we need someone to just slog and try their luck then we can get one of the bowlers do that Naseem, Rauf both are capable of blind slog on a poor ball.

 

[shariqnoor]

Nice idea.

But will it work when we hit 64/1 in 10 overs and have to chase 190?

I seriously doubt it.

Yes for a target of 160 to 170, I suppose Pakistan can pull it off even by playing slow on a good day if the middle order fires.

A classic strawman argument.

There's no factual evidence that Pakistan was 64/1 when having to chase 190+. Either they will be 64/5 or 85/0 in 10 overs.

The problem with people analyzing with required run-rates is that they do not take into account the remaining deliveries and wickets in hand. Even if you're chasing 190, being 85/0 in 10 overs is much better than being 110/5 for Pakistan. While the Required Run Rate in the former case is 10.5 and in the latter it's 8.0, the fact that you have all 10 wickets in hand with less number of deliveries to play means a 10.5 required rate should be achieved 95 times out of 100.

 

[PakPremi]

[MENTION=141811]shariqnoor[/MENTION] exactly what you pointed out. No point having 70 runs in PP if you are 3 down, especially for team like Pakistan whose middle order is highly unreliable to score much when the top order is out early.

 

[Mamoon]

I think you need to stop with the nonsense of chasing 170 against Sri Lanka.

Energy is right when he says that there are far too many people who have zero clue about cricket and are just sitting in their arm chairs spoting nonsense. However there is another category too. This that actually have played cricket but are so blinded by hate that they ignore facts and keep coming out with rubbish.

Now lets go back to that 170 chase against Sri Lanka.

What was Sri Lanka's score after 8 overs? How many wickets had they lost? What should they have scored had we bowled and fielded better and taken the right decisions on the field?

Should we have been chasing 170?

Our display when replying to that innings is not about openers slow strike rates. The game has far more nuisances then "Oh Rizwan batted slowly, pathetic strike rates etc etc".

Similarly in today's game, the wicket was slow and only got slower and we feel behind due to good bowling from Bracewel. We could have collapsed at that point or taken the game further, keeping wickets in hand and then exploding against the other bowlers which we actually did in the end.

When the wicket is good our top order usually scores at a very decent click and when you have the likes of Fakhar in form we usually end up with good scores or chase down anything that is in front of us.

These are irrefutable facts and are for those that don't really understand the game. To the blind haters, nothing anyone says is going to change their views.

Excuse me for rudely intruding into a discussion that doesn’t concern me, but I couldn’t help myself because I have seen this line of argument too many times every time Rizwan is criticized the botched chase in the Asia Cup final.

You are not the only one to make this argument and the only reason I am quoting this post is because I couldn’t find the others.

My reply is not only to you above but to everyone who is claiming that Rizwan and Babar were not responsible for the loss in the Asia Cup final.

Yes it is true that Pakistani bowlers had Sri Lankan batsmen under the pump at 50/5 and should not have let them score 170 from that point but, regardless of what happened in the first innings and how Sri Lanka managed to put 170 on the board, it was a very achievable target in those conditions and Babar and Rizwan bottled it.

Instead of being 50/5, if Sri Lanka would have been 80/2 in 10 overs and then scored 90 in the last 10 to score 170, that would have meant that our bowlers never put them under pressure, and so in those circumstances, would it be okay to criticize Babar and Rizwan for the way the played?

The point is that how Sri Lanka managed to put 170 board has absolutely nothing to do with how Pakistan went about chasing the total.

It is like defending Younis and Misbah for Mohali semifinal by stating that India would have never put 260 on the board had we not dropped Tendulkar 5 times.

It is a nonsense argument because regardless of how India got to 260, Pakistani batsmen bottled a very achievable target.

The moral of the story is that there is no point in focusing on how Sri Lanka got to 170 in the first place just to deflect criticism away from Babar and Rizwan who played absolutely pathetically and deserve to be criticized.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

If Pakistan's strategy to solve the middle order crisis is promoting Nawaz to no.4 then I think there might be problems with it when the world cup comes around. He's quite a limited player who tends to block or hit a 6, but I suppose the mitigating factor is, he doesn't usually play airy-fairy shots like Haider who neatly scoops the ball to waiting fielders, today's innings excepted.

Seems like they see Nawaz as this era's answer to Abdul Razzaq who was a similar block-block-six blaster, but he got found out big style against the leg spinners.

Still it has won Pakistan two matches, so let's give credit where it's due.

 

[Cric1234]

How many teams have chased 200+ multiple times in a single series? When teams such as England, Australia or even India with their power hitters and dynamic batters struggle to do that, you are expecting two stroke-makers to chase down 200 multiple times?

Willey and Curran are regular members of the England team, so what did I say wrong there?

Once again, the sample size is too small. It’s just three games (not four as you want to somehow blame RizBabar for the semi-final too)

I’m wasting my time debating cricket with someone who considers Kamran Akmal or Imran Nazir ‘match-winners’

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...stan-vs-sri-lanka-final-356017/full-scorecard

There you despite his inconsistency Kamran played a decent innings in a final isn’t that what you want from any player or are you going to say something else to deflect this aswell now.

It seems like you find any way to deflect facts a new one batsmen can’t chase 200 twice well there’s a reason why against better bowling Babar and Rizwan have chased a target above 170 0 times come back when they actually do whether it’s their 10th or 20th attempt.

 

[PakPremi]

Lets get it understood Kamran Akmal was a complete rubbish performer ,and I seen most of international matches he played in. Justbecause one time he managed to hit few boundaries in a final,does nit change this fact. Its watching like him open for Pakistan and being regularly 30 -3 starts gave me lots of painful memories of Pakistani openers.

 

[IMMY69]

Excuse me for rudely intruding into a discussion that doesn’t concern me, but I couldn’t help myself because I have seen this line of argument too many times every time Rizwan is criticized the botched chase in the Asia Cup final.

You are not the only one to make this argument and the only reason I am quoting this post is because I couldn’t find the others.

My reply is not only to you above but to everyone who is claiming that Rizwan and Babar were not responsible for the loss in the Asia Cup final.

Yes it is true that Pakistani bowlers had Sri Lankan batsmen under the pump at 50/5 and should not have let them score 170 from that point but, regardless of what happened in the first innings and how Sri Lanka managed to put 170 on the board, it was a very achievable target in those conditions and Babar and Rizwan bottled it.

Instead of being 50/5, if Sri Lanka would have been 80/2 in 10 overs and then scored 90 in the last 10 to score 170, that would have meant that our bowlers never put them under pressure, and so in those circumstances, would it be okay to criticize Babar and Rizwan for the way the played?

The point is that how Sri Lanka managed to put 170 board has absolutely nothing to do with how Pakistan went about chasing the total.

It is like defending Younis and Misbah for Mohali semifinal by stating that India would have never put 260 on the board had we not dropped Tendulkar 5 times.

It is a nonsense argument because regardless of how India got to 260, Pakistani batsmen bottled a very achievable target.

The moral of the story is that there is no point in focusing on how Sri Lanka got to 170 in the first place just to deflect criticism away from Babar and Rizwan who played absolutely pathetically and deserve to be criticized.

Thank you for your reply.
Like others have alluded, the game is not played on a computer console.
When a team recovers from a losing position and puts up a decent total it affects the whole team. Sri Lanka had the momentum and Pakistan were mentally shot.

Once Babar was out cheaply and an out of form Fakhar was out for a golden duck we had Iftikhar make 30 odd runs at run a ball.
Nobody else made any runs.
That loss was not down to Rizwan alone, far from it in fact.
Case in point is our recent games against Bangladesh and the Kiwis.

In that Asia Cup final, had Rizwan also fallen cheaply the game would have been over even sooner.

I recall saying on the match threads that Hafeez's retirement has left a huge hole in our middle order. A batsmen who could actually play to the situation.
I also said that Babar's captaincy was disappointing.
I even remember saying that both openers could have tried to score more quickly BUT the reason we did poorly and have done poorly in some games isnn be it down to Rizwan or Babar's batting, it's more down to the lack of quality middle order batsmen.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Yes, I definitely trust the judgement of someone who thinks this world cup will have quarter finals.

Thank you. I stand corrected.
However, I think you might have gotten the gist of my comment.
Lets say, Pakistan unable to reach slot 1 or 2 in it's group will be a fair call. We simply don't have the batting power.

:: snip ::

I will make a bold claim here:

With the current team, if Pakistan can consistently limit the opposition teams to less than 170, we will win the entire championship, provided Pakistan is chasing each and every time.

Mark it now.

I guess you didn't take the large Aussie boundaries into consideration?

They will surely help our bowlers to restrict the good oppositions under 170, and we will see it more often than not, (I think 165 is a winning score in those big grounds) - and we won't see too many teams scoring 180 +, but these long boundaries will equally haunt our batting order.

Perhaps Pak batting force should just forget hitting sixes and stick with a few 4's support by 3's and lots of 2's and 1's.

I guess 8 out of 10 times, if our batters try to hit a six in those large boundary, they will be caught. So chasing 165 could be very, very tough against good teams in a large boundary line if they try to hit big, too many times.

If Pakistan reaches semi finals, then it will be pleasant surprise for me. I will happily take it.

 

[Cric1234]

I think you need to stop with the nonsense of chasing 170 against Sri Lanka.

Energy is right when he says that there are far too many people who have zero clue about cricket and are just sitting in their arm chairs spoting nonsense. However there is another category too. This that actually have played cricket but are so blinded by hate that they ignore facts and keep coming out with rubbish.

Now lets go back to that 170 chase against Sri Lanka.

What was Sri Lanka's score after 8 overs? How many wickets had they lost? What should they have scored had we bowled and fielded better and taken the right decisions on the field?

Should we have been chasing 170?

Our display when replying to that innings is not about openers slow strike rates. The game has far more nuisances then "Oh Rizwan batted slowly, pathetic strike rates etc etc".

Similarly in today's game, the wicket was slow and only got slower and we feel behind due to good bowling from Bracewel. We could have collapsed at that point or taken the game further, keeping wickets in hand and then exploding against the other bowlers which we actually did in the end.

When the wicket is good our top order usually scores at a very decent click and when you have the likes of Fakhar in form we usually end up with good scores or chase down anything that is in front of us.

These are irrefutable facts and are for those that don't really understand the game. To the blind haters, nothing anyone says is going to change their views.

I won’t say a lot I was discussing the batting part of the matches if you want to discuss the bowing from what I’m getting your saying 170 was well above par and unchaseable?

Then again the 175 vs Australia must have been below par as they chased it comfortably and the 200 plus England made again the bowlers fault as Pakistan failed to chase it.

From looking at the scorecards it’s simply looks like the openers can’t make a decent contribution in a high scoring match against better bowling but they have chased 200 against weaker bowling they didn’t even need the help of the middle order in these matches clearly not good enough against better bowling it’s as simple as that no matter how much ridiculing and deflecting of the actual point people do.

 

[Cric1234]

Lets get it understood Kamran Akmal was a complete rubbish performer ,and I seen most of international matches he played in. Justbecause one time he managed to hit few boundaries in a final,does nit change this fact. Its watching like him open for Pakistan and being regularly 30 -3 starts gave me lots of painful memories of Pakistani openers.

He was more miss than hit throughout his career but he did play a few decent innings in the 2009 and 2010 world cups that can’t be ignored as he played a part in Pakistan winning one no matter how inconsistent he was the great openers of today have played zero match winning innings in any important match match losing would be more accurate.

 

[Cric1234]

Thank you for your reply.
Like others have alluded, the game is not played on a computer console.
When a team recovers from a losing position and puts up a decent total it affects the whole team. Sri Lanka had the momentum and Pakistan were mentally shot.

Once Babar was out cheaply and an out of form Fakhar was out for a golden duck we had Iftikhar make 30 odd runs at run a ball.
Nobody else made any runs.
That loss was not down to Rizwan alone, far from it in fact.
Case in point is our recent games against Bangladesh and the Kiwis.

In that Asia Cup final, had Rizwan also fallen cheaply the game would have been over even sooner.

I recall saying on the match threads that Hafeez's retirement has left a huge hole in our middle order. A batsmen who could actually play to the situation.
I also said that Babar's captaincy was disappointing.
I even remember saying that both openers could have tried to score more quickly BUT the reason we did poorly and have done poorly in some games isnn be it down to Rizwan or Babar's batting, it's more down to the lack of quality middle order batsmen.

Another interesting point had Rizwan fallen sooner the game would’ve been over quicker well Rizwan got out when the run rate was an impossible 15 an over believe it or not him and Iftikhar made sure there was no chance of a win.

Yesterday thankfully Masood and Rizwan got out when the run rate was still 10 or a similar thing would’ve happened but then again why let facts get in the way of ridicule and deflecting criticism clearly the top 3 are not good enough to chase anything above 170 unless it’s a weak bowling attack they look like all time greats when it’s weak bowling.

 

[IMMY69]

Another interesting point had Rizwan fallen sooner the game would’ve been over quicker well Rizwan got out when the run rate was an impossible 15 an over believe it or not him and Iftikhar made sure there was no chance of a win.

Yesterday thankfully Masood and Rizwan got out when the run rate was still 10 or a similar thing would’ve happened but then again why let facts get in the way of ridicule and deflecting criticism clearly the top 3 are not good enough to chase anything above 170 unless it’s a weak bowling attack they look like all time greats when it’s weak bowling.

I think it's best we agree to disagree.

 

[Cric1234]

I think it's best we agree to disagree.

Maybe you like the openers a lot and refute any criticism I understand that I’m looking for anything that shows they can do it in the important matches the way they’ve chased 200 comfortably against weaker bowling hopefully it won’t cost Pakistan again at the World Cup as being the number 1 and 2 batsmen you expect a few big performances in tournaments knockouts.

 

[TheSultan]

Everything is just perfect.

When the middle order fail - bad, bad middle order. Credit to Babar and Rizwan for a solid start etc etc.

Openers fail, middle order succeed. Middle order only succeeded because of strategy. Credit to Babar and Rizwan for the strategy.

 

[Titan24]

NZ played poorly and Pakistan bowled very well in the last 4 overs, otherwise on a sticky wicket we were definitely chasing 180+ runs.

So what do you think Pakistan should be after 10 overs chasing around 190?

You tell me?

As a general rule you should aim to go about chasing targets of over 180 in a way that you need around 100 in last 10 overs (If not less) with 7-8 wickets in hand. 100 in 60 balls in 2nd half of batting innings while chasing in any case is a pretty reasonable target to achieve on most even paced surfaces. First half becomes really important not only in terms of scoring runs but, also not losing too many wickets. If you lose 4 or more in first 10 overs (Going at around 8-9 rpo) while chasing anything above 180 then most of the times you will end up on losing side.

Team like Eng can be a possible exception to the wickets lost in first 10 overs with the kind of batting depth they have. Aus with the mental strength they have generally even they remain in the game more often then not despite losing too many wickets in first 10. Rest of the teams will lose most of the times if they lose 4 or more wickets inside 10 while chasing 180 or more.

Pak should have won the final of the Asia cup based upon where they were after 10 overs where they stood at 68/2 (Yes ideally should have scored more but, it was very much possible). Wicket maybe slowed down a bit as match progressed but, its was the 13th over by Theekshana which sent the nerves down in the Pak camp after which the Req RR went above 11 (11.42) and overs 14 and 15 with Iftikhar getting out and Riz and Nawaz struggling to middle the ball pretty much sealed the fate. After 10 overs one would have backed the batting side on most surfaces to win it with 8 wickets in hand requiring 103 in 60 balls however, outstanding fielding by Srl, nerves and surface possibly slowing down allowed for that 20-30% chance of defending from there becoming a reality.

 

[Cric1234]

Everything is just perfect.

When the middle order fail - bad, bad middle order. Credit to Babar and Rizwan for a solid start etc etc.

Openers fail, middle order succeed. Middle order only succeeded because of strategy. Credit to Babar and Rizwan for the strategy.

Absolutely and if you criticise the openers you have low IQ and no cricketing knowledge that’s what I’m getting from some people they are immune to criticism and play as they want fail 10 times when needed but nobody should say anything.

 

[Cric1234]

If the team is relying on Haider and Nawaz to play a 200 strike rate innings every match then that’s not right they won’t be able to do that regularly.

In the World Cup less pressure needs to be on the middle order and the number 1 and 2 ranked batsmen need to make a more meaningful contribution in high scoring matches otherwise it’s an early exit for Pakistan and I won’t even discuss any match where the openers chase 200 against B teams in the future if they are so good then they must surely do it against the better teams.

 

[Grunge101]

Commended for what exactly?

For taking ages to realize what multiple media circles, pundits and fans alike had been demanding for ages ? Or allowing the likes of Chacha, khushdil to be part of the team again and again despite being utterly useless? Or packing the middle order with hacks to compensate for their own low SR?. Or sending Fakhar down to the middle order and decimating his SR so that the opening combo remains intact?

This is no "inspired" decision. They had their backs against the wall with nothing working in the middle order and the whole country at their throats. It's then that they finally decided to try the only option left to them which was to promote Shadab and Nawaz over the hacks. Something the likes of Rashid Latif had been suggesting for more than 3 years now.

The past 24 months have clearly shown Babar to be someone who is not captain material. The icing on the cake is the unchallenged power that seems to be lended to him by the board. The toothless coaching staff is one component of it. When you have Saqlain defending a persistently failing middle order by saying " wins and losses are part of the game" and Yousuf asking media to not criticize the middle order as they are "already under pressure" and then sending in Tait for the presser when they perform at their worst, then you know there is no sign of things getting better.

 

[Energy]

Salty peppers are out in numbers here. Can't fathom the fact that a gameplan by Pakistan was created and it worked. Finding excuses to criticise everything for the sake of it.

Well done Babar and co for finding the right guys to be slotted in the right order to carry the batting after you and Rizwan.

 

[Mamoon]

Thank you for your reply.
Like others have alluded, the game is not played on a computer console.
When a team recovers from a losing position and puts up a decent total it affects the whole team. Sri Lanka had the momentum and Pakistan were mentally shot.

Once Babar was out cheaply and an out of form Fakhar was out for a golden duck we had Iftikhar make 30 odd runs at run a ball.
Nobody else made any runs.
That loss was not down to Rizwan alone, far from it in fact.
Case in point is our recent games against Bangladesh and the Kiwis.

In that Asia Cup final, had Rizwan also fallen cheaply the game would have been over even sooner.

I recall saying on the match threads that Hafeez's retirement has left a huge hole in our middle order. A batsmen who could actually play to the situation.
I also said that Babar's captaincy was disappointing.
I even remember saying that both openers could have tried to score more quickly BUT the reason we did poorly and have done poorly in some games isnn be it down to Rizwan or Babar's batting, it's more down to the lack of quality middle order batsmen.

If Babar and Rizwan were mentally shot after Sri Lanka recovered from a losing position, then his fans should refrain from calling them the best T20 batting pair since the dawn of time.

You would expect the number 1 and number 2 batsmen in the world to have enough mental strength to not let the events of the first innings affect them and chase a totally achievable target of 171 in those conditions.

They even got a head start when the Sri Lankan opening bowler conceded 10 extras without a single legit delivery, which means the target was reduced to 161 without a single ball being bowled.

It should have been a walk in the park for Babar and Rizwan and they choked big time and deserve to be criticized. They have cost Pakistan thrice with their approach: WT20 semifinal, Asia Cup Final and the England series decider.

 

[MenInG]

Babar Azam on this topic in captain's presser:

"Winning the Tri-series in New Zealand has given a lot of confidence; So before an event like the World Cup, when you get such good performances then as a team it gives you a lot of confidence; We are backing the middle-order; Apart from Ifti, the way Nawaz and Shadab have played some of the innings shows that the middle-order is chipping in so that is a good sign for us before the World Cup"

 

[TheSultan]

All of these measures are trial and error. There is no method to it. Everything is random apart from an immovable strategy of Babar and Rizwan finding a way to maintain their average and cumulative stats etc.

One day Shadab is coming in at 4, one day Nawaz is. One day Haider is one down, one day he comes later.

A logical move would be to at least move one of Rizbar down to no3 or 4. It strengthens the middle order as well as having a strategy to take advantage of the pp by going over the infield. You don’t need to have a great technique to open in T20s. Look at Allen from NZ. Nothing but slogs.

But I fear if we break up the Rizbar combo we may not be able to come out with these heartwarming infographics about their “partnerships”. The loss of these may affect the mental health of some fans.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Nawaz is aproper lower order hitter. Very underrated in T20 format and a perfect man to come in the last 4 or 5 overs.

Middle order is still very poor. Iftikar, Hyder Ali and Masood are below average players.

 

[Cric1234]

If Babar and Rizwan were mentally shot after Sri Lanka recovered from a losing position, then his fans should refrain from calling them the best T20 batting pair since the dawn of time.

You would expect the number 1 and number 2 batsmen in the world to have enough mental strength to not let the events of the first innings affect them and chase a totally achievable target of 171 in those conditions.

They even got a head start when the Sri Lankan opening bowler conceded 10 extras without a single legit delivery, which means the target was reduced to 161 without a single ball being bowled.

It should have been a walk in the park for Babar and Rizwan and they choked big time and deserve to be criticized. They have cost Pakistan thrice with their approach: WT20 semifinal, Asia Cup Final and the England series decider.

Good point Sri Lanka gave a 10 run head start from there on putting the bowlers under pressure should’ve been the aim the opposite happened 50 at a run a ball from Rizwan and 30 at a run a ball from Iftikhar two of the worst innings played in any final.

Similar things were happening against New Zealand luckily both Masood and Rizwan got out quickly or else that 25 run over against Sodhi would never have happened and Nawaz Haider both would’ve had too much do to towards the end of the innings.

 

[pakistani pride]

People need to be honest. Would Rizwan ever hit Sodhi for 25 runs in an over during a final?

No.