Shoaib Malik Support & Performance Watch

[miandadrules]

I don't really care about what percentage of his runs were off edges, to be honest. I don't claim he's a better batsman than Babar, that would be delusional.

His intent is what matters, he wanted to rotate strike and go for the odd big shots against a spinner who we gifted with two wickets.

The fact of the matter is that Malik and Sarfraz sadly seem to be the only batsmen in the lineup who seem capable of batting properly in the middle overs. It's important for momentum to be sustained, or revived in the middle of the innings and Umar Akmal's knock today showed that we're lacking someone who can do that in the middle order.

Malik is not ideal but he is doing what he needs to do.

Who gifted him the wickets? A rookie and a guy that shouldn't be there. Once again not really credible reference point.

But if you want to ignore the what is clearly evident so be it.

He may have intent, he certainly doesn't have the skill set.

 

[Abdullah719]

Who gifted him the wickets? A rookie and a guy that shouldn't be there. Once again not really credible reference point.

But if you want to ignore the what is clearly evident so be it.

He may have intent, he certainly doesn't have the skill set.

He has the skill set to do a job in the middle-order and that's all that matters. It's a team game.

He's not the best batsman, heck he's not a very good batsman and he has his limitations. Most people accept that.

Until we try others and find a good alternative, he will probably stay. The other current middle-order options (See: Asad Shafiq, Umar Akmal, Mohammad Rizwan) are all providing worse output at the moment.

 

[miandadrules]

He has the skill set to do a job in the middle-order and that's all that matters. It's a team game.

He's not the best batsman, heck he's not a very good batsman and he has his limitations. Most people accept that.

Until we try others and find a good alternative, he will probably stay. The other current middle-order options (See: Asad Shafiq, Umar Akmal, Mohammad Rizwan) are all providing worse output at the moment.

Here we go again.

Have Umar and Rizwan been given the same opportunities as Malik?

 

[Abdullah719]

Here we go again.

Have Umar and Rizwan been given the same opportunities as Malik?

Umar has played over 100 ODIs while Rizwan looks like a tailender at the moment and is incapable of playing spin, which is a basic requirement for a middle-order ODI batsman.

 

[ddss]

Looked good out there but rarely goes big.

 

[miandadrules]

Umar has played over 100 ODIs while Rizwan looks like a tailender at the moment and is incapable of playing spin, which is a basic requirement for a middle-order ODI batsman.

Has Umar been given the opportunity to bat in a prime slot for an extended period against weak opposition like Malik has?

Has Rizwan been given a consistent run in any position, let alone at a position he is suited to? I'm not even advocating his selection but why the discrepancy in the criteria?

 

[Abdullah719]

Has Umar been given the opportunity to bat in a prime slot for an extended period against weak opposition like Malik has?

Has Rizwan been given a consistent run in any position, let alone at a position he is suited to? I'm not even advocating his selection but why the discrepancy in the criteria?

Since his hundred against Afghanistan, Umar is averaging 22 in 23 ODIs. That's pretty bad, no matter who the opponents are.

He's returning after a period out of the team so I am in favour of giving him more chances.

Rizwan should bat much higher up the order but everyone wants to bat there at the moment. He showed that he can be good at #6 but is currently woefully out of form. However, a batsman who lacks the ability to play spin should not be batting at #5 anyway.

I am not saying we should persist with Malik till the 2023 World Cup, nor am I saying that we have done a superb job with trying alternatives in the middle-order. I'm simply saying Malik is doing what he needs to do at the moment.

This series was an ideal time to try someone in the middle-order due to Sarfraz's absence but the selectors sadly only left us with Shafiq.

 

[miandadrules]

Since his hundred against Afghanistan, Umar is averaging 22 in 23 ODIs. That's pretty bad, no matter who the opponents are.

He's returning after a period out of the team so I am in favour of giving him more chances.

Rizwan should bat much higher up the order but everyone wants to bat there at the moment. He showed that he can be good at #6 but is currently woefully out of form. However, a batsman who lacks the ability to play spin should not be batting at #5 anyway.

I am not saying we should persist with Malik till the 2023 World Cup, nor am I saying that we have done a superb job with trying alternatives in the middle-order. I'm simply saying Malik is doing what he needs to do at the moment.

This series was an ideal time to try someone in the middle-order due to Sarfraz's absence but the selectors sadly only left us with Shafiq.

Which batting positions has Umar batted and against which opposition, if we truly want to make a comparison to Malik?

It's convenient to play Rizwan out of position and then dismiss him as out of form while lauding Malik's cameos.

Malik is being played as the mainstay of the batting line-up and I'm sorry he isn't fulfilling that role. But if you feel our mainstay should bash the occasional minnow on helpful surfaces and play the odd cameo.

You can continue to hail Malik's performances but then you have no right to complain when it all inevitably falls apart and nor can you claim to be wise after the event.

 

[Abdullah719]

Which batting positions has Umar batted and against which opposition, if we truly want to make a comparison to Malik?

It's convenient to play Rizwan out of position and then dismiss him as out of form while lauding Malik's cameos.

Malik is being played as the mainstay of the batting line-up and I'm sorry he isn't fulfilling that role. But if you feel our mainstay should bash the occasional minnow on helpful surfaces and play the odd cameo.

I am a bit short on time at the moment so I can't go digging through the stats for Umar Akmal's batting position, sorry. For what it's worth, I don't think he should be batting in the lower middle-order.

I am not the one deciding where Rizwan plays but I would assume you can see that a batsman incapable of playing spin should not bat at #5?

You can continue to hail Malik's performances but then you have no right to complain when it all inevitably falls apart and nor can you claim to be wise after the event.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[miandadrules]

I am a bit short on time at the moment so I can't go digging through the stats for Umar Akmal's batting position, sorry. For what it's worth, I don't think he should be batting in the lower middle-order.

I am not the one deciding where Rizwan plays but I would assume you can see that a batsman incapable of playing spin should not bat at #5?



Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

So, a batman who can't play spin shouldn't bat at 5 but a batsman who can't play any sort of half-decent bowling should be the mainstay and be given a prime batting slot? Be shielded from the newer ball and better bowlers despite being overwhelmingly the most experienced?

 

[Abdullah719]

So, a batman who can't play spin shouldn't bat at 5 but a batsman who can't play any sort of half-decent bowling should be the mainstay and be given a prime batting slot? Be shielded from the newer ball and better bowlers despite being overwhelmingly the most experienced?

Every batsman serves a different purpose in the line-up. I don't want Rizwan to bat at #5 nor would I say Malik should open. Sarfraz and Malik both need to be there in the middle-overs because they know how to manoeuvre the ball into the gaps and to take on the spinners.

There is no mainstay of an ODI lineup, everyone has their own role. The main batting slot in an ODI lineup is normally #3 which is where Babar is rightfully batting.

I think we seem to be reading the game in a different way so perhaps it's best if we agree to disagree.

As I've said, ideally we find an upgrade on Malik in the near future.

 

[ads101]

Funny in the past he did well up the order and worse down the order. Now looks at home down the order, sort of looks like that lower order batsman that holds things together like Inzi was and what we wanted umar to be. But yeah doing a good job atm, not many complaints, bowling decently too.

 

[miandadrules]

Every batsman serves a different purpose in the line-up. I don't want Rizwan to bat at #5 nor would I say Malik should open. Sarfraz and Malik both need to be there in the middle-overs because they know how to manoeuvre the ball into the gaps and to take on the spinners.

There is no mainstay of an ODI lineup, everyone has their own role. The main batting slot in an ODI lineup is normally #3 which is where Babar is rightfully batting.

I think we seem to be reading the game in a different way so perhaps it's best if we agree to disagree.

As I've said, ideally we find an upgrade on Malik in the near future.

I'm not saying Rizwan should bat at 5. I'm questioning why your rationale doesn't extend to Malik?

Are you saying a top five batsman should only be expected to play cameos?

4 and 5 are the positions which the batting revolves around. They capitalise on a good start or repair a poor one.

 

[Abdullah719]

I'm not saying Rizwan should bat at 5. I'm questioning why your rationale doesn't extend to Malik?

Are you saying a top five batsman should only be expected to play cameos?

4 and 5 are the positions which the batting revolves around. They capitalise on a good start or repair a poor one.

My rationale is entirely consistent. Your #5 batsman needs to be a very good player of spin and needs to be very good at rotating strike. Sarfraz and Malik fit the bill, Rizwan does not.

Similarly, your top 3 batsmen need to be able to deal with lateral movement and should be comfortable against pace.

Don't recall saying anything about cameos - I think I mentioned that Malik tends to get out for middling scores at time. That wasn't a compliment.

 

[miandadrules]

My rationale is entirely consistent. Your #5 batsman needs to be a very good player of spin and needs to be very good at rotating strike. Sarfraz and Malik fit the bill, Rizwan does not.

Similarly, your top 3 batsmen need to be able to deal with lateral movement and should be comfortable against pace.

Don't recall saying anything about cameos - I think I mentioned that Malik tends to get out for middling scores at time. That wasn't a compliment.

Well, on one hand you say he is needed yet on the other hand you don't put much weight to his "middling scores" (which is genorous to say the least). Is playing spin the only pre-requisite?

You're applying a strict criteria to Rizwan but a liberal one to Malik. That's my point.

Rizwan - can't play spin hence no room to accommodate.

Malik - only really comfortable against spin with middling scores, hence our best option for 4/5.

 

[Black Zero]

Umer should be given his preferred slot (which is #3, as per mmhs ), however is some has a sr of 75 in last few overs, umer would score at the sr of 50/60. Not good enough yet.

Only shareef and Malik got sr of odi players.

Everyone else need to raise the game.

 

[miandadrules]

He was a big reason why we didn't reach a competitive total.

Came in when the part-timers were on.
Middled one with the outside edge, another with inside edge.

Followed by the shot of the day, a 6 from the middle of the fielders hand.

Then when the frontline bowlers came on, after being given all that opportunity to settle in he did the Macarena out got out.

Asking a number 5 to kick on has become taboo.

 

[super hitter]

He was a big reason why we didn't reach a competitive total.

Came in when the part-timers were on.
Middled one with the outside edge, another with inside edge.

Followed by the shot of the day, a 6 from the middle of the fielders hand.

Then when the frontline bowlers came on, after being given all that opportunity to settle in he did the Macarena out got out.

Asking a number 5 to kick on has become taboo.

incredibly offensive

 

[miandadrules]

incredibly offensive

The truth usually is to a closed mind.

 

[Abdullah719]

Well, on one hand you say he is needed yet on the other hand you don't put much weight to his "middling scores" (which is genorous to say the least). Is playing spin the only pre-requisite?

You're applying a strict criteria to Rizwan but a liberal one to Malik. That's my point.

Rizwan - can't play spin hence no room to accommodate.

Malik - only really comfortable against spin with middling scores, hence our best option for 4/5.

The criteria I am applying to Rizwan is on the basis of him lacking the skills to be a middle-order option at the moment. He can, of course, improve. He has a lot more time remaining as a cricketer than someone like Malik.

Malik can improve but at least he is suited to the role he is playing. I already mentioned a few times that he has too many middling scores.

My point is that Malik is doing an adequate job, while yours seems to be that he is terrible. Let's move on.

 

[miandadrules]

The criteria I am applying to Rizwan is on the basis of him lacking the skills to be a middle-order option at the moment. He can, of course, improve. He has a lot more time remaining as a cricketer than someone like Malik.

Malik can improve but at least he is suited to the role he is playing. I already mentioned a few times that he has too many middling scores.

My point is that Malik is doing an adequate job, while yours seems to be that he is terrible. Let's move on.

Malik lacks the skills too.

My point is simple, if you think a top 5 batsman playing the odd cameo is adequate then you must be over the moon with our ODI ranking.

You have no right to complain nor criticise any other batsman that merely plays cameos when situation is at it's most amenable.

You can't have it both ways.

Spin it whichever way you want but he played a significant part in us not attaining a par total today.

 

[cricketInsight]

It is really childish to criticize Malik at this point. We have to make the best of what we have.

Malik is clearly the 2nd pick after Babar for a middle order batsman in our ODI team. 21 innings ago, he was the first pick. All other arguments about technique and opportunities is meaningless.

 

[miandadrules]

It is really childish to criticize Malik at this point. We have to make the best of what we have.

Malik is clearly the 2nd pick after Babar for a middle order batsman in our ODI team. 21 innings ago, he was the first pick. All other arguments about technique and opportunities is meaningless.

Talking about performance nothing else.

A top order batsman that can play cameos when part-timers are on is the best we can hope for?

 

[Abdullah719]

Malik lacks the skills too.

My point is simple, if you think a top 5 batsman playing the odd cameo is adequate then you must be over the moon with our ODI ranking.

You have no right to complain nor criticise any other batsman that merely plays cameos when situation is at it's most amenable.

You can't have it both ways.

Spin it whichever way you want but he played a significant part in us not attaining a par total today.

Malik lacks the skill to play raw pace which is not ideal, but it is not a basic requirement for a middle-order batsman.

I'm hardly excited about the ODI ranking but that's where we are at the moment and we have to accept it. It's been a long time coming.

I will criticise whoever I feel deserves criticism at the correct moment.

I don't recall saying anything about his knock today. He got out at an inopportune time but what he did was give some momentum to the innings which was lacking at the time. However, his dismissal resulted in Umar Akmal's struggles at the crease and Babar Azam consequently sacrificed his wicket, which was the turning point of the match. Obviously it could've been better had he stayed in the middle - I did not say anything contrary to that.

 

[cricketInsight]

Talking about performance nothing else.

A top order batsman that can play cameos when part-timers are on is the best we can hope for?

It is the best we have. He probably has the highest avg since his ODI return.

He is no Kohli or Smith but unfortunately, he is really our second best middle order batsman.

 

[miandadrules]

Malik lacks the skill to play raw pace which is not ideal, but it is not a basic requirement for a middle-order batsman.

I'm hardly excited about the ODI ranking but that's where we are at the moment and we have to accept it. It's been a long time coming.

I will criticise whoever I feel deserves criticism at the correct moment.

I don't recall saying anything about his knock today. He got out at an inopportune time but what he did was give some momentum to the innings which was lacking at the time. However, his dismissal resulted in Umar Akmal's struggles at the crease and Babar Azam consequently sacrificed his wicket, which was the turning point of the match. Obviously it could've been better had he stayed in the middle - I did not say anything contrary to that.

It's not just raw pace, it's any decent seamer.

But why are you applying differing criteria? Malik gets out after getting set playing the part-timers yet is applauded for giving momentum, whilst Akmal is criticised for not maintaining it straight away whilst facing the front line bowlers?

It's not about being excited about the ranking. You should be satisfied with it, as you are with Malik's performance.

You can certainly criticise whom ever you want but it should be highlighted with there isn't consistency in its application.

 

[miandadrules]

It is the best we have. He probably has the highest avg since his ODI return.

He is no Kohli or Smith but unfortunately, he is really our second best middle order batsman.

I'm sorry the average is based on bashing Zimbabwe and a depleted Sri Lanka.

Even Kamran Akmal would be do a more effective job in the role assigned to Malik. How many others have been given the opportunity that Malik has for you to reach this conclusion?

 

[Abdullah719]

It's not just raw pace, it's any decent seamer.

But why are you applying differing criteria? Malik gets out after getting set playing the part-timers yet is applauded for giving momentum, whilst Akmal is criticised for not maintaining it straight away whilst facing the front line bowlers?

It's not about being excited about the ranking. You should be satisfied with it, as you are with Malik's performance.

You can certainly criticise whom ever you want but it should be highlighted with there isn't consistency in its application.

The first 24 balls that Umar faced were from Stanlake and Head and 15 of them were dot-balls. Umar displayed lack of temperament and match awareness at the start of his innings. He is obviously not suited to playing at this role in the batting order.

Malik fell due to a lack of ability. He has obviously never learnt how to play pace properly and just prodded at a full delivery rather than playing a confident shot.

The only reason I responded to your initial post is because I felt you have an inherent bias towards discussing the short-comings of some players without ever acknowledging their good points, or when they do well. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's the impression I got.

I don't see how you're reading my posts and concluding I am a big fan of Malik. I am neutral towards him. He has a few strengths and a lot of weaknesses. When he does well, he'll be praised. When he fails as he did in the first few matches in England, he will receive criticism. That's how it should be.

 

[Abdullah719]

I'm sorry the average is based on bashing Zimbabwe and a depleted Sri Lanka.

Even Kamran Akmal would be do a more effective job in the role assigned to Malik. How many others have been given the opportunity that Malik has for you to reach this conclusion?

How have you come to this conclusion? Is Kamran Akmal a good rotator of strike? Is he fast between the wickets? Does he play spinners well?

 

[miandadrules]

How have you come to this conclusion? Is Kamran Akmal a good rotator of strike? Is he fast between the wickets? Does he play spinners well?

He has a greater skill set.

But the main criteria is he plays quality bowling better and he is by no means a bunny against spin.

Unless, you think spin bowling is all that a middle-order batsman faces.

Now, I'm not advocating his selection but merely putting in to perspective Malik's inclusion.

 

[Abdullah719]

He has a greater skill set.

Kamran Akmal would most definitely be a better opener than Malik.

But the main criteria is he plays quality bowling better and he is by no means a bunny against spin.

Unless, you think spin bowling is all that a middle-order batsman faces.

Spin bowling and medium pace comprises the majority of what a middle-order batsman generally faces.

Now, I'm not advocating his selection but merely putting in to perspective Malik's inclusion.

You're saying that he would do a "more effective job in the role assigned to Malik".

Running between the wickets and rotating the strike are basic requirements for a middle-order batsman. Kamran is easily worse than Malik on both accounts.

 

[cricketInsight]

I'm sorry the average is based on bashing Zimbabwe and a depleted Sri Lanka.

Even Kamran Akmal would be do a more effective job in the role assigned to Malik. How many others have been given the opportunity that Malik has for you to reach this conclusion?

Claiming that Kamran Akmal is a better late middle order batsman than Malik is also a week argument. There is no performance data to back that up either. He did start by batting down the order but wasnt providing much value.

 

[Syed1]

The awkward moment when people hate on Malik but want him replaced by Kami.. rofl

 

[miandadrules]

The first 24 balls that Umar faced were from Stanlake and Head and 15 of them were dot-balls. Umar displayed lack of temperament and match awareness at the start of his innings. He is obviously not suited to playing at this role in the batting order.

Malik fell due to a lack of ability. He has obviously never learnt how to play pace properly and just prodded at a full delivery rather than playing a confident shot.

The only reason I responded to your initial post is because I felt you have an inherent bias towards discussing the short-comings of some players without ever acknowledging their good points, or when they do well. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's the impression I got.

I don't see how you're reading my posts and concluding I am a big fan of Malik. I am neutral towards him. He has a few strengths and a lot of weaknesses. When he does well, he'll be praised. When he fails as he did in the first few matches in England, he will receive criticism. That's how it should be.

Once again, you criticise Akmal who is returning to the side with his place in jeopardy for not scoring at a scoring rate. Are you saying Stanlake was easier to face than Faulkner? This is exactly my point, you're using differing criteria to suit your conclusions. As you praised Malik for scoring of Faulkner and Head, eventhough a a third of his runs were fortuitous.

What great strengths of Malik's am I missing?

Why don't you give an example of my inherent bias. Better still why don't you give an example of where I have given players a pass on the issues I've criticised the likes of Malik.

This is a typical response on PP when I bring up points, it just comes down to ad hominem attacks.

I haven't said you were a fan. It's irrelevant whether you are or not. What is relevant is the inconsistency with which you are applying logic.

 

[miandadrules]

The awkward moment when people hate on Malik but want him replaced by Kami.. rofl

Not awkward at all.

I am more than happy to stand by any statement I make. I'm not advocating his selection but merely putting Malik's true worth in to perspective.

 

[miandadrules]

Claiming that Kamran Akmal is a better late middle order batsman than Malik is also a week argument. There is no performance data to back that up either. He did start by batting down the order but wasnt providing much value.

Malik is being played as a middle-order not a late order batsman.

Malik had a five year run as a failure and has made merry against Zimbabwe. Purely based on batting prowess and needs of the team Kamran trumps Malik.

 

[Syed1]

Not awkward at all.

I am more than happy to stand by any statement I make. I'm not advocating his selection but merely putting Malik's true worth in to perspective.

I don't know what your beef is with Malik perhaps he ran over your puppy or something, but Malik has done well with the bat in this series and does not deserve the level of criticism you are inflicting onto him.

 

[miandadrules]

Kamran Akmal would most definitely be a better opener than Malik.



Spin bowling and medium pace comprises the majority of what a middle-order batsman generally faces.



You're saying that he would do a "more effective job in the role assigned to Malik".

Running between the wickets and rotating the strike are basic requirements for a middle-order batsman. Kamran is easily worse than Malik on both accounts.

And Malik is susceptible against any decent seam bowler. You're are being totally disingenuous to say raw pace. He hasn't faced anyone remotely classed as raw pace since his return. So unless they are complete trundlers your point is moot.

Running between the wickets and rotating the strike is only effective once your able to negotiate the primary delivery and that is the most important point.

 

[miandadrules]

I don't know what your beef is with Malik perhaps he ran over your puppy or something, but Malik has done well with the bat in this series and does not deserve the level of criticism you are inflicting onto him.

Oh look, resorting to ad hominem attacks, how original.

Which criticism is unjustified?

Let's discuss the great feats he has achieved in this series.

 

[Mamoon]

Oh look, resorting to ad hominem attacks, how original.

Which criticism is unjustified?

Let's discuss the great feats he has achieved in this series.

None of your criticism is unjustified, but Malik merits a place at the moment because he is doing decently relative to others and we are also very short on options in general. However, he needs to retire after the 2019 World Cup.

 

[Abdullah719]

Once again, you criticise Akmal who is returning to the side with his place in jeopardy for not scoring at a scoring rate. Are you saying Stanlake was easier to face than Faulkner? This is exactly my point, you're using differing criteria to suit your conclusions. As you praised Malik for scoring of Faulkner and Head, eventhough a a third of his runs were fortuitous.

Akmal is a far better player of pace than Malik therefore I have higher expectations of him. However, he went for a wild slog on the fifth ball that he faced and then just kept on defending balls, piling the pressure onto his cousin. The main reason why I am criticising him is because of his intent and also the bigger picture - his lack of fitness, etc. However, as mentioned, I do feel he is no longer suited to playing down the order but we are short of options.

What great strengths of Malik's am I missing?

Malik's strengths are strike rotation and playing spinners, medium pacers. I have mentioned that a few times.

Why don't you give an example of my inherent bias. Better still why don't you give an example of where I have given players a pass on the issues I've criticised the likes of Malik.

I said that you are quick to criticise but rarely praise some players, no matter what they do.

This is a typical response on PP when I bring up points, it just comes down to ad hominem attacks.

I didn't consider saying "I felt you are biased at times against certain players" to be an ad hominem attack, I was just explaining the reason for my initial response. If you go back on this 'legendary' thread, you'll see I have rarely posted here otherwise. If you consider that a personal attack, then please accept my sincere apologies. I have no interest in taking this conversation down that route.

 

[miandadrules]

None of your criticism is unjustified, but Malik merits a place at the moment because he is doing decently relative to others and we are also very short on options in general. However, he needs to retire after the 2019 World Cup.

You're advocating a top 5 batsman who will play the odd cameo in favourable conditions to play until the World Cup?

How many other batsman have been given as consistent a run as Malik for you to arrive at this conclusion?

 

[Abdullah719]

And Malik is susceptible against any decent seam bowler. You're are being totally disingenuous to say raw pace. He hasn't faced anyone remotely classed as raw pace since his return. So unless they are complete trundlers your point is moot.

Running between the wickets and rotating the strike is only effective once your able to negotiate the primary delivery and that is the most important point.

OK, let's change that to fast-bowlers, i.e. anyone bowling 140+ fairly regularly rather than Johnson/Akhtar type pace.

Malik is also susceptible to lateral movement as many middle-order players are, specially those who are ODI specialists.

However, when the ball isn't moving around, he can take on good bowlers as well - unless they are of the pacy type i.e. 140+ kph.

 

[Syed1]

Oh look, resorting to ad hominem attacks, how original.

Which criticism is unjustified?

Let's discuss the great feats he has achieved in this series.

He has done better than Umar Akmal, Azhar, Asad, Hafeez, Rizwan, Imad and Sharjeel in this series. It's not Malik's fault the other bats aren't kicking on.

I get it, you don't like him, I'm not a fan either, but atleast have the objectivity to accept when a player you dislike isn't doing so bad.

What's worse is you want him replaced by a known bottler in Kami

 

[miandadrules]

Akmal is a far better player of pace than Malik therefore I have higher expectations of him. However, he went for a wild slog on the fifth ball that he faced and then just kept on defending balls, piling the pressure onto his cousin. The main reason why I am criticising him is because of his intent and also the bigger picture - his lack of fitness, etc. However, as mentioned, I do feel he is no longer suited to playing down the order but we are short of options.



Malik's strengths are strike rotation and playing spinners, medium pacers. I have mentioned that a few times.



I said that you are quick to criticise but rarely praise some players, no matter what they do.



I didn't consider saying "I felt you are biased at times against certain players" to be an ad hominem attack, I was just explaining the reason for my initial response. If you go back on this 'legendary' thread, you'll see I have rarely posted here otherwise. If you consider that a personal attack, then please accept my sincere apologies. I have no interest in taking this conversation down that route.

1. So you think Akmal is better batsman than Malik and isn't suited to playing down the order yet you priorities Malik's batting position over his. Yet Malik, had the luxury of settling in against the weak links of the bowling attack and when the time came to push on he folded. Now, is it fair that you praise Malik's performance whilst criticising Akmal? You're critical of Akmal's slog but oblivious to the fortuitous nature in which Malik got his runs? Why the double standard? Why are you expecting Akmal to play fluently from the word go against the frontline bowlers when a settled Malik only lasted a few deliveries?

2. I asked which strengths I have failed to acknowledge of Malik's as you keep stating.

3. Once again please give a single example of where I have praised or criticised a single player, whilst given another a pass on the same issues. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to do.

4. If you didn't think that saying I am biased without giving proof as an attack, then what did you think it was? Praise?

There is no need to apologise. Like I have maintained from the start I am willing to back up anything I say and to stand by it. And if I am proved wrong please feel free to bring it to everyones attention.

 

[miandadrules]

OK, let's change that to fast-bowlers, i.e. anyone bowling 140+ fairly regularly rather than Johnson/Akhtar type pace.

Malik is also susceptible to lateral movement as many middle-order players are, specially those who are ODI specialists.

However, when the ball isn't moving around, he can take on good bowlers as well - unless they are of the pacy type i.e. 140+ kph.

Why don't you give an example of when he has taken pacy bowlers on. And I don't mean an isolated innings but a decent sample.

Because I can assure that they are few and far between and can no way be used to justify your statement that if the ball isn't moving he can take 140kph bowlers on.

 

[miandadrules]

He has done better than Umar Akmal, Azhar, Asad, Hafeez, Rizwan, Imad and Sharjeel in this series. It's not Malik's fault the other bats aren't kicking on.

I get it, you don't like him, I'm not a fan either, but atleast have the objectivity to accept when a player you dislike isn't doing so bad.

What's worse is you want him replaced by a known bottler in Kami

I'm sorry where have I praised the performances of the others mentioned?

Azhar, Asad, Rizwan and Hafeez shouldn't be in the ODI team as frontline batsmen, which I have stated numerous times. Hafeez should bat lower down as an all-rounder, preferably at Malik's position.

He hasn't played better than Sharjeel, whose impact has been noticeable and of whom Malik has been a beneficiary.

Imad is in the side primarily for his bowling, which has had an impact on this series. Yet you're oddly comparing batting of a middle-order specialist bat to that of a lower-order bowling all-rounder and you have the audacity to say I lack objectivity.

Now, you have conveniently ignored that Akmal and Rizwan have been played out of position whereas Malik has been given his prime spot.

It's not a question of whether I like him or not. Please give an example of my lack of objectivity.

I didn't say I want Kami in the side. I said that even Kami is a better alternative. And I stand by that statement.

 

[Abdullah719]

Why don't you give an example of when he has taken pacy bowlers on. And I don't mean an isolated innings but a decent sample.

Because I can assure that they are few and far between and can no way be used to justify your statement that if the ball isn't moving he can take 140kph bowlers on.

I think you misinterpreted my post.

 

[Mamoon]

You're advocating a top 5 batsman who will play the odd cameo in favourable conditions to play until the World Cup?

How many other batsman have been given as consistent a run as Malik for you to arrive at this conclusion?

No, I'm not advocating that. If you look at my post in this thread earlier today (or was it the match thread), I explicitly stated that Malik should have kicked on, but his cameo did give us impetus in the middle-overs after the loss of Sharjeel.

As far as the other batsmen are concerned, what are the options? Umar? Rizwan? Maqsood? ..... Fawad? I'm happy with the current form of Malik if these are the alternatives.

 

[Hasan123]

He merits a place in the side. He's good at rotating the strike, good at rotating strike and hitting boundaries vs spinners, yes he struggles against pace but not as bad as people make out. Has a good cricketing brain as well. Should be our number 4. Not like we have better players in domestic cricket.

 

[Abdullah719]

1. So you think Akmal is better batsman than Malik and isn't suited to playing down the order yet you priorities Malik's batting position over his. Yet Malik, had the luxury of settling in against the weak links of the bowling attack and when the time came to push on he folded. Now, is it fair that you praise Malik's performance whilst criticising Akmal? You're critical of Akmal's slog but oblivious to the fortuitous nature in which Malik got his runs? Why the double standard? Why are you expecting Akmal to play fluently from the word go against the frontline bowlers when a settled Malik only lasted a few deliveries?

I am not prioritising anyone's batting position, I am simply stating my opinion.

I praised Malik's innings for the momentum he gave and criticised the timing of his dismissal.

The difference between Umar and Malik's innings was mainly the intent. Umar has a lot more ability but he does not know how to bat at #6, that is clear. Thus I criticised him, but I also acknowledge that he should get a few chances at the top of the order as he has just returned to the team. Dropping him now would be pointless.

2. I asked which strengths I have failed to acknowledge of Malik's as you keep stating.

I didn't say that, I said you criticise him when he fails but when he does well, there's always a problem - either it's against a minnow, if not that then it's in a dead rubber, if not that then he came in with the required run-rate too already under control so the innings wasn't praiseworthy.

3. Once again please give a single example of where I have praised or criticised a single player, whilst given another a pass on the same issues. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to do.

To be honest, most of your posts are criticial of Malik and Afridi so I don't know much about your views on other players. Perhaps I'll rephrase my original claim of 'bias' to 'lack of praise when players you criticise do well' as that might be more accurate.

4. If you didn't think that saying I am biased without giving proof as an attack, then what did you think it was? Praise?

See above.

 

[miandadrules]

I am not prioritising anyone's batting position, I am simply stating my opinion.

I praised Malik's innings for the momentum he gave and criticised the timing of his dismissal.

The difference between Umar and Malik's innings was mainly the intent. Umar has a lot more ability but he does not know how to bat at #6, that is clear. Thus I criticised him, but I also acknowledge that he should get a few chances at the top of the order as he has just returned to the team. Dropping him now would be pointless.



I didn't say that, I said you criticise him when he fails but when he does well, there's always a problem - either it's against a minnow, if not that then it's in a dead rubber, if not that then he came in with the required run-rate too already under control so the innings wasn't praiseworthy.



To be honest, most of your posts are criticial of Malik and Afridi so I don't know much about your views on other players. Perhaps I'll rephrase my original claim of 'bias' to 'lack of praise when players you criticise do well' as that might be more accurate.



See above.

1. Yes you are stating your opinion, which prioritises Malik's need over those of Akmal and the team. You like to emphasise intent but yet are critical of player being played out of position and not been given a consistent run, especially against weaker opposition. Yet, by the same token giving the experienced player, to whom everything has been catered for a pass.

2. Is there anything factually incorrect in what I have said? Do performances against minnows elevate Pakistan cricket? Do we have a history of players who fail against minnows? Is there an issue if you perform against the weakest of nations and then fail when it matters?

Should we ignore the fact that he performed against a 2nd string attack in a dead rubber against England? Does that nullify he previous 20+ failures in England?

With regards to the 2nd Australian ODI did I rubbish his performance? Amongst all the hyperbole spewed by his fans who were claiming he was the reason for the victory I merely gave some perspective. Was it a heroic effort on his part? Was the required rate of 4.5 with 7 wickets in hand a herculean effort? Was he the prime reason for the victory? Did it vindicate his position in the team?

So what you seem to have an issue with is that I am not willing to indulge in the hysteria and ignore the blatant weaknesses which will ultimately cost the team.

What you have issue with is that I asked for perspective.

What you have issue with is that I ask for consistency in the analysis of players.

3. Once again, what great performances of Malik's and Afridi's have I ignored? Which performances that have taken Pakistan to great heights have I rubbished.

Are Malik and Afridi legendary world beaters who have been justified in representing Pakistan 800 times?

So, like i said your issue is that I bring some perspective and refuse to indulge in hysteria. If you take comfort in ignoring the fundamental flaws that are evident and wallow in your ignorance about them, then you can't by the same token take umbrage when the team fails.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[miandadrules]

No, I'm not advocating that. If you look at my post in this thread earlier today (or was it the match thread), I explicitly stated that Malik should have kicked on, but his cameo did give us impetus in the middle-overs after the loss of Sharjeel.

As far as the other batsmen are concerned, what are the options? Umar? Rizwan? Maqsood? ..... Fawad? I'm happy with the current form of Malik if these are the alternatives.

It may have given impetus but it was fortuitous to say the least and against the weakest links in the attack, and predictably ended as soon as a frontline bowler came on. If this was a one off it could be excused but sadly for Pakistan cricket it isn't.

Umar hasn't been given a consistent run at the higher spots especially against soft opposition in the manner Malik has. He certainly has a higher ceiling than Malik.

Rizwan, Maqsood or Fawad are not replacements. In fact, Hafeez should not be opening and is a far superior middle-order option than Malik. Then you have the returning Haris and Sarfraz. Even Kamran Akmal has greater potency than Malik.

 

[Abdullah719]

1. Yes you are stating your opinion, which prioritises Malik's need over those of Akmal and the team. You like to emphasise intent but yet are critical of player being played out of position and not been given a consistent run, especially against weaker opposition. Yet, by the same token giving the experienced player, to whom everything has been catered for a pass.

2. Is there anything factually incorrect in what I have said? Do performances against minnows elevate Pakistan cricket? Do we have a history of players who fail against minnows? Is there an issue if you perform against the weakest of nations and then fail when it matters?

Should we ignore the fact that he performed against a 2nd string attack in a dead rubber against England? Does that nullify he previous 20+ failures in England?

With regards to the 2nd Australian ODI did I rubbish his performance? Amongst all the hyperbole spewed by his fans who were claiming he was the reason for the victory I merely gave some perspective. Was it a heroic effort on his part? Was the required rate of 4.5 with 7 wickets in hand a herculean effort? Was he the prime reason for the victory? Did it vindicate his position in the team?

So what you seem to have an issue with is that I am not willing to indulge in the hysteria and ignore the blatant weaknesses which will ultimately cost the team.

What you have issue with is that I asked for perspective.

What you have issue with is that I ask for consistency in the analysis of players.

3. Once again, what great performances of Malik's and Afridi's have I ignored? Which performances that have taken Pakistan to great heights have I rubbished.

Are Malik and Afridi legendary world beaters who have been justified in representing Pakistan 800 times?

So, like i said your issue is that I bring some perspective and refuse to indulge in hysteria. If you take comfort in ignoring the fundamental flaws that are evident and wallow in your ignorance about them, then you can't by the same token take umbrage when the team fails.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

I don't know where you're going with #1 so I'll leave it at that.

Regarding performances against minnows, we're in a position where any losses to low ranking teams are out of the question therefore any and all performances are most welcome. Perhaps we wouldn't have lost 3-0 to Bangladesh a couple of years ago starting the slide, if someone had stepped up.

Regarding the performances against England, the likes of Woakes, Willey, Wood and Stokes are constant fixtures in the lineup while Dawson was really the only newbie in the team. As Malik is expected to do, he took the attack to the spinner while he did OK against the rest. I never said anything about nullifying previous failures.

Malik's performance in the first ODI was important as Hafeez had just thrown his wicket away and the commentators had started discussing the impending collapse. Asad was struggling at the other end. It was a good innings, capping off a solid team performance. I don't recall many people using hyperbolic statements to brand the innings as the best ever or anything of the sort. His fans probably had a reason to celebrate, however, as it's long been predicted by many that Malik would be a complete failure outside Asia, against big teams, etc.

No one is asking you to indulge in hysteria but your posts seem to revolve mostly around criticism of Malik and Afridi, discussing their failures and shortcomings. If they ever do well, there's always a reason to dampen the performance and when they fail, it's the usual sarcastic exchanges with his fans with the conversation inevitably becoming more about point-scoring than anything else.

Which fundamental flaws have I ignored? Would like some elaboration on that, please. I criticise where the situation merits it and vice versa. I see no point on going on a crusade against any single player, it's a game of cricket at the end of the day.

I'd also like to hear about some replacement options for Malik in the middle-order, barring Kamran Akmal. That could perhaps be a more fruitful discussion than this one where we're going about in circles.

 

[Black Zero]

Malik was the best pbatsman from Pakistan.

He scored almost double compared to his partner (who was playing for some time), also this partnership was the best partnership for Pakistan:



Malik and Babur scored 63 runs and during same overs Australia scored 67, difference of only 4 runs (while Australia reached target in 46th over) this shows that how good Malik was playing.

However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, he loves to play cut shots and that's one his main area of scoring runs, but that also makes him susceptible to caught behind:



He can also play selfishly and "build" his inning but that's not putting your country first.

 

[Abdullah719]

Malik was the best pbatsman from Pakistan.

He scored almost double compared to his partner (who was playing for some time), also this partnership was the best partnership for Pakistan:

View attachment 72109

Malik and Babur scored 63 runs and during same overs Australia scored 67, difference of only 4 runs (while Australia reached target in 46th over) this shows that how good Malik was playing.

However, as I mentioned in an earlier post, he loves to play cut shots and that's one his main area of scoring runs, but that also makes him susceptible to caught behind:

View attachment 72111

He can also play selfishly and "build" his inning but that's not putting your country first.

And here we have the other end of the spectrum that I'm not too fond of.

By this logic, Sharjeel was the best batsman because he scored almost 7x as many as Hafeez did in the opening partnership.

This is a bizarre measure to evaluate an innings.

And I am sorry to inform you that this is not a cut shot:

 

[Black Zero]

And here we have the other end of the spectrum that I'm not too fond of.

By this logic, Sharjeel was the best batsman because he scored almost 7x as many as Hafeez did in the opening partnership.

This is a bizarre measure to evaluate an innings.

And I am sorry to inform you that this is not a cut shot:

I think it would be fair to say as Hafeez's SR was 33% (4 in 33 balls)
But importantly, Hafeez/Sharjeel partner was not the Best Partnership of the match.

 

[Mamoon]

It may have given impetus but it was fortuitous to say the least and against the weakest links in the attack, and predictably ended as soon as a frontline bowler came on. If this was a one off it could be excused but sadly for Pakistan cricket it isn't.

Umar hasn't been given a consistent run at the higher spots especially against soft opposition in the manner Malik has. He certainly has a higher ceiling than Malik.

Rizwan, Maqsood or Fawad are not replacements. In fact, Hafeez should not be opening and is a far superior middle-order option than Malik. Then you have the returning Haris and Sarfraz. Even Kamran Akmal has greater potency than Malik.

Not in the middle-order, but I won't mind him replacing Azhar as opener. The returning Haris should be replacing Shafiq at number 4, with Sarfraz replacing Rizwan, who looks a level below Malik given the way he is batting these days.

Malik is here to stay for the next couple of years and not wrongly so.

 

[miandadrules]

I don't know where you're going with #1 so I'll leave it at that.

Regarding performances against minnows, we're in a position where any losses to low ranking teams are out of the question therefore any and all performances are most welcome. Perhaps we wouldn't have lost 3-0 to Bangladesh a couple of years ago starting the slide, if someone had stepped up.

Regarding the performances against England, the likes of Woakes, Willey, Wood and Stokes are constant fixtures in the lineup while Dawson was really the only newbie in the team. As Malik is expected to do, he took the attack to the spinner while he did OK against the rest. I never said anything about nullifying previous failures.

Malik's performance in the first ODI was important as Hafeez had just thrown his wicket away and the commentators had started discussing the impending collapse. Asad was struggling at the other end. It was a good innings, capping off a solid team performance. I don't recall many people using hyperbolic statements to brand the innings as the best ever or anything of the sort. His fans probably had a reason to celebrate, however, as it's long been predicted by many that Malik would be a complete failure outside Asia, against big teams, etc.

No one is asking you to indulge in hysteria but your posts seem to revolve mostly around criticism of Malik and Afridi, discussing their failures and shortcomings. If they ever do well, there's always a reason to dampen the performance and when they fail, it's the usual sarcastic exchanges with his fans with the conversation inevitably becoming more about point-scoring than anything else.

Which fundamental flaws have I ignored? Would like some elaboration on that, please. I criticise where the situation merits it and vice versa. I see no point on going on a crusade against any single player, it's a game of cricket at the end of the day.

I'd also like to hear about some replacement options for Malik in the middle-order, barring Kamran Akmal. That could perhaps be a more fruitful discussion than this one where we're going about in circles.

1. Aren't you doing to Akmal what you accuse me of doing to Malik, without being even handed to both?
A better player (Akmal) by your very own statement hasn't been given a run at a position against weaker sides and in favourable conditions. Yet you chose to single him out while giving the player who has everything catered for a pass.

2. Once again you are not answering the question. Which minnows are we losing to and which players have poor records against minnows?

Are Bangladesh a minnow ODI side at home since 2015? You are well aware of this but conveniently chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative that you are trying to push. Performances in that series wouldn't have been considered minnow bashing. The fact that you are trying to equate a performance against the current Bangladesh side away to Zimbabwe at home speaks volumes to what you are doing here.

2. I like the way you have liberally grouped all those England players together to add substance to your argument, and have boldly claimed that Dawson was the only "newbie".

Why have you conveniently forgotten that Wood had only played 7 previous ODIs?

Why have you forgotten that Willey only bowled ONE delivery to Malik?

Where have I rubbished this performance?

Are we to ignore all the factors in play and equate this performance as any other against England? If that is the case, then the extreme example would be equating a performance against the current Wet Indies team as being equivalent to that of the team in the 70s and 80s. Would that be an intelligent approach? Should we abandon nuance? Is that how you go about analysis in every other facet of your life?

Should I not mention any of these FACTS?

Should I ignore the cost to the team in all those previous matches in order for him to finally reach a respectable performance?

Please clearly state what I should have done, as you seem so offended by the use of perspective.

2. Once again you are using diversionary tactics. Please clearly state what I said that was so wrong about Malik's performance in the 2nd ODI or where I have discounted its relevance?

The fact that you are using Asad, a player who is the worst ODI bat in our history as a reference is very indicative.

3. Unsurprisingly, you have indulged in making sweeping statements that my posts focus on Malik and Afridi, to indicate that I must have an inherent bias. Yet you conveniently ignore the percentage of threads and posts that are centred around these two players and the hyperbole that they contain. You ignore their continued selection despite feeble returns. Why are you being disingenuous in this regard?

Please clearly show where I have "dampened" their great performances? You keep saying it so give some examples. Please, show where I have failed to substantiate a single thing I have said.

4. You are ignoring the fundamental flaws in the team. For one Malik's role in the team. You wouldn't even acknowledge that playing as a specialist bat is a pivotal role in the team which demands a far greater return than Malik has thus far provided.

And yet again another ad hominem attack, by suggesting that I am on a crusade in what is a shallow attempt to diminish the points I have made.

We're not going in circles at all. You have made a number of sweeping generalised statements about me and when I have asked for clarification you have followed them with more generalised statements.

 

[miandadrules]

[/b]

Not in the middle-order, but I won't mind him replacing Azhar as opener. The returning Haris should be replacing Shafiq at number 4, with Sarfraz replacing Rizwan, who looks a level below Malik given the way he is batting these days.

Malik is here to stay for the next couple of years and not wrongly so.

Even in your scenario if Akmal opens, then Hafeez replaces Malik in the middle-order.

 

[Abdullah719]

Wait... I had replied earlier but it didn't get posted.

Anyway...

1. Aren't you doing to Akmal what you accuse me of doing to Malik, without being even handed to both?
A better player (Akmal) by your very own statement hasn't been given a run at a position against weaker sides and in favourable conditions. Yet you chose to single him out while giving the player who has everything catered for a pass.

I am criticising Akmal's performance because it is worth criticising, and I am criticising his overall record since his hundred against Afghanistan. I used to criticise Malik a lot for his terrible record prior to his return and if he reverts to that sort of mediocrity for an extended period, I will criticise him again. My views of players are subject to change based on their performances. Currently I think Malik is doing a decent enough job but a couple of poor series could easily bring an end to his career.

2. Once again you are not answering the question. Which minnows are we losing to and which players have poor records against minnows?

Are Bangladesh a minnow ODI side at home since 2015? You are well aware of this but conveniently chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit the narrative that you are trying to push. Performances in that series wouldn't have been considered minnow bashing. The fact that you are trying to equate a performance against the current Bangladesh side away to Zimbabwe at home speaks volumes to what you are doing here.

You are twisting my words around a little. I said we can't afford to lose to minnows due to our ranking, thus performances against them are also important. That does not mean that Malik can get away with lack of performances against better teams, in the long run.

2. I like the way you have liberally grouped all those England players together to add substance to your argument, and have boldly claimed that Dawson was the only "newbie".

Why have you conveniently forgotten that Wood had only played 7 previous ODIs?

Why have you forgotten that Willey only bowled ONE delivery to Malik?

Where have I rubbished this performance?

You said it was a 2nd string attack, but it wasn't. Woakes, Willey and Stokes are regulars while the only reason Wood isn't is due to his injuries. He would probably be in the mix right now if he wasn't so injury prone. I didn't consider him a newbie as he's been around the England set-up for a while; Dawson hasn't.

Are we to ignore all the factors in play and equate this performance as any other against England? If that is the case, then the extreme example would be equating a performance against the current Wet Indies team as being equivalent to that of the team in the 70s and 80s. Would that be an intelligent approach? Should we abandon nuance? Is that how you go about analysis in every other facet of your life?

Should I not mention any of these FACTS?

Should I ignore the cost to the team in all those previous matches in order for him to finally reach a respectable performance?

Please clearly state what I should have done, as you seem so offended by the use of perspective.

I was talking about one innings so I am not sure where you're going with this.

2. Once again you are using diversionary tactics. Please clearly state what I said that was so wrong about Malik's performance in the 2nd ODI or where I have discounted its relevance?

The fact that you are using Asad, a player who is the worst ODI bat in our history as a reference is very indicative.

The reference to Asad was because of the partnership and its effect on the match. Regardless, perhaps I am wrong in this regard as I don't think you have said anything out of the ordinary about this innings, I was confusing it with comments on the innings in the 3rd ODI.

3. Unsurprisingly, you have indulged in making sweeping statements that my posts focus on Malik and Afridi, to indicate that I must have an inherent bias. Yet you conveniently ignore the percentage of threads and posts that are centred around these two players and the hyperbole that they contain. You ignore their continued selection despite feeble returns. Why are you being disingenuous in this regard?

Please clearly show where I have "dampened" their great performances? You keep saying it so give some examples. Please, show where I have failed to substantiate a single thing I have said.

I don't ignore posts of the other nature either, I deal with them when I wish to respond. There are a few posters that will criticise some players no matter what, and praise others no matter what. I frequently criticise that point of view as well.

Let me elaborate on my opinion about Afridi and Malik's selections. I have been against Afridi's selection in any format, barring perhaps T20Is for a very long time. Now I don't think he serves much purpose in the shortest format either. I heavily opposed Malik and talk about his selection before his return and continued to do so until he displayed some semblance of performance. It is true that he has still not performed on a very consistent basis against better teams which is why I say his position would (should) be under threat if he has a couple of poor series. The Champions Trophy will be a big test as his weak record in England is well-known - lack of performance in the tournament should result in the end of his career.

4. You are ignoring the fundamental flaws in the team. For one Malik's role in the team. You wouldn't even acknowledge that playing as a specialist bat is a pivotal role in the team which demands a far greater return than Malik has thus far provided.

ODI cricket has changed. You do not have specialist batsmen like Inzi batting at #5 anymore. You need to have utility players. Malik is a utility player as well. If he couldn't contribute ~5 overs an innings and was a pathetic fielder, he probably wouldn't be a part of the side.

And yet again another ad hominem attack, by suggesting that I am on a crusade in what is a shallow attempt to diminish the points I have made.

We're not going in circles at all. You have made a number of sweeping generalised statements about me and when I have asked for clarification you have followed them with more generalised statements.

Let me retract those comments as I can not possibly go through all your posts to substantiate my point.

 

[Sarfarazian92]

I don't like Malik, but looking at the respect Travis Head received in the first match from Akmal and Rizwan infuriated me.

The same Travis Head was bullied by Hafeez and Malik later on in the series.

Yes, Malik is not too good against fast bowling. Yes, he has scored heavily against Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka which is why his average is inflated. But I'm pretty sure had Akmal or Rizwan arrived at the crease before Malik in the second ODI, we wouldn't have won the match with the same amount of ease.

 

[msb314]

I don't know where you're going with #1 so I'll leave it at that.

Regarding performances against minnows, we're in a position where any losses to low ranking teams are out of the question therefore any and all performances are most welcome. Perhaps we wouldn't have lost 3-0 to Bangladesh a couple of years ago starting the slide, if someone had stepped up.

Regarding the performances against England, the likes of Woakes, Willey, Wood and Stokes are constant fixtures in the lineup while Dawson was really the only newbie in the team. As Malik is expected to do, he took the attack to the spinner while he did OK against the rest. I never said anything about nullifying previous failures.

Malik's performance in the first ODI was important as Hafeez had just thrown his wicket away and the commentators had started discussing the impending collapse. Asad was struggling at the other end. It was a good innings, capping off a solid team performance. I don't recall many people using hyperbolic statements to brand the innings as the best ever or anything of the sort. His fans probably had a reason to celebrate, however, as it's long been predicted by many that Malik would be a complete failure outside Asia, against big teams, etc.

No one is asking you to indulge in hysteria but your posts seem to revolve mostly around criticism of Malik and Afridi, discussing their failures and shortcomings. If they ever do well, there's always a reason to dampen the performance and when they fail, it's the usual sarcastic exchanges with his fans with the conversation inevitably becoming more about point-scoring than anything else.

Which fundamental flaws have I ignored? Would like some elaboration on that, please. I criticise where the situation merits it and vice versa. I see no point on going on a crusade against any single player, it's a game of cricket at the end of the day.

I'd also like to hear about some replacement options for Malik in the middle-order, barring Kamran Akmal. That could perhaps be a more fruitful discussion than this one where we're going about in circles.

hahahaha sorry this made me laugh so much!

 

[TalentSpotterPk]

Malik should hope none of Stanlake or Cummins play otherwise 92mph Bouncers and Malik won't be able to cope as usual.

Stanlake won't play...

Cummins was bowling rubbish last time he played internationally. Don't see him troubling Shobby.

Remember :

1. Bounce

&

2. Pace


And this thread addressee


Have a rishta (relation) of 18 years.

Probably 1-2 years lesser than your age

I told you so. Both have been picked and rightly so.


Now watch out.

Now with Hazlewood, Starc, Cummins & Stanlake it would be decided whether Malik will play WC2019 or not.

Now is his real test. Forget about performances against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe & Srilanka in last two years for a moment now.

Come on Malik turn it on. Time for record ki durusdagi against Top pace bowling line ups. 18 years turn it around now.

Go Malik Go

Finally


# Pakrha Gaya

 

[IMMY69]

I see this thread is still going strong...

Why can't we just do away with these TTF's and play some youngsters.
Sure initially we'll lose more then we win but eventually we'll develop one or two worldclass middle order batsmen who are on the right side of 30.

Malik was never a great batsman but I think it would be foolish to retain him simply because he's better then the rest (which is debatable).

__________________
Time to draw the line

 

[Black Zero]

Highest average by any pakistani player by a big margin.
69.00

Second highest after warner, from both teams.

 

[waleed88]

Just because he finished not outs in 2 innings )

 

[Black Zero]

Just because he finished not outs in 2 innings )

Good that you realized (eventually).

 

[waleed88]

Good that you realized (eventually).

Is that praise that your relishing out on him?

 

[Black Zero]

Is that praise that your relishing out on him?

Not bad if you avg 69. In Australia.

 

[IMMY69]

Not bad if you avg 69. In Australia.

The same way he averages 50+ in South Africa

 

[Black Zero]

The same way he averages 50+ in South Africa

Main focus is on Australia at the moment so not concerned about other venues.

 

[IMMY69]

Main focus is on Australia at the moment so not concerned about other venues.

But the point is that you can use stats to make a player seem better then they actually are.

 

[Black Zero]

But the point is that you can use stats to make a player seem better then they actually are.

I admit that stats do not tell that the full picture, however this is the best tool we have to judge performance.

And avg is pretty standard metric.

 

[Abdullah719]

I admit that stats do not tell that the full picture, however this is the best tool we have to judge performance.

And avg is pretty standard metric.

Not over a span of 4 ODIs which includes two not-outs.

 

[IMMY69]

I admit that stats do not tell that the full picture, however this is the best tool we have to judge performance.

And avg is pretty standard metric.

Whereas some people would prefer to watch a player's technique and see how they actually perform over a period of time.

What's interesting is the differences of opinion people have over a player. For me, Malik has always been ordinary against decent bowling and for this reason I think we should invest in younger players.

The time has surely come.

 

[Black Zero]

Not over a span of 4 ODIs which includes two not-outs.

Actually I did not run any custom query in stat guru, these tour averages are given on cricinfo page by default. If it's good enough for cricinfo, then it's okay for me.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ling_by_team.html?id=11121;team=7;type=series

I would have preferred that management let Malik to play at #4, (instead of accommodating Asad and hafeez) so that less chance for Malik to remain not and more chances for him to score more)

 

[Abdullah719]

Actually I did not run any custom query in stat guru, these tour averages are given on cricinfo page by default. If it's good enough for cricinfo, then it's okay for me.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ling_by_team.html?id=11121;team=7;type=series

I would have preferred that management let Malik to play at #4, (instead of accommodating Asad and hafeez) so that less chance for Malik to remain not and more chances for him to score more)

Yes, Malik was the best performer in this series.

And Voges is the 2nd best Test batsman in history.

Come on... be a little realistic.

 

[Black Zero]

Whereas some people would prefer to watch a player's technique and see how they actually perform over a period of time.

What's interesting is the differences of opinion people have over a player. For me, Malik has always been ordinary against decent bowling and for this reason I think we should invest in younger players.

The time has surely come.

I like Asad and believe that he plays shot on merit.But playing the correct shots won't help team.

Malik and similar players (who play with high sr) need to play unconventionally and that's not pleasant on eyes.

 

[Black Zero]

Yes, Malik was the best performer in this series.

And Voges is the 2nd best Test batsman in history.

Come on... be a little realistic.

Warner is the best performer in this series.