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.
)
