Should Pakistan discard Test specialists?

[gazza619]

Did having test specialists achieve anything for Pakistan? Did it make us a top test team?

Pakistan plays 7-8 test matches every year and this is when the likes Azhar Ali, Asad Shafiq and Yasir Shah cash in their pay cheques. I have seen so many times that in a 2-3 test series a player would play well in one innings and this will book his place for the next test series in 4 months time.

Would it not be a good idea if Pakistan discards test players who have no contribution to make in ODIs? Unless of course if a player is exceptional then I am okay with it.

This would give exposure to our next breed of players who would mature in quick time by playing test cricket and thereby also become quality ODI players. I genuinely believe that the Babar Azam became a better ODI player by playing more and more test cricket.

I think this should be the way forward as the ultimate aim has to be 2023 WC. I can already think of half a dozen young players who are for international cricket.

 

[Boi]

I would still play UAE Shah when the conditions suit but Azhar and Asad need to go. They’re useless now.

 

[Mamoon]

Test specialists are becoming obsolete unless they are elite. England is a good example - the likes of Cook, Anderson and Broad are the last of a dying breed, and they are now moving on to the likes of Buttler and Roy (will debut soon) instead of investing in Test specialists that would probably not fare any better than the multi-format players.

Yasir has some mileage left in Asia but I think the time has come to move on from the likes of Azhar and Shafiq.

The two replacements of Hafeez and Malik should also serve as the replacements of Azhar and Shafiq as well.

 

[Savak]

Azhar Ali absolutely. The guy is absolutely limited and he completly fell short as the senior batsman of the team on the tour to South Africa

 

[Justcrazy]

No.

A few test specialists need to be played. Players should be played in the formats they are effective.

 

[hur rizvi]

Every team has test specialists. Not everyone is an all format player

Take ABBAS for example he’s not going to become even an acceptable level odi bowler but he is worth investing in tests. Same with Yasir

I would still want us to persist with Azhar and shafiq till Aus series because we don’t have anyone ready to replace them Atm

 

[hur rizvi]

Test specialists are becoming obsolete unless they are elite. England is a good example - the likes of Cook, Anderson and Broad are the last of a dying breed, and they are now moving on to the likes of Buttler and Roy (will debut soon) instead of investing in Test specialists that would probably not fare any better than the multi-format players.

Yasir has some mileage left in Asia but I think the time has come to move on from the likes of Azhar and Shafiq.

The two replacements of Hafeez and Malik should also serve as the replacements of Azhar and Shafiq as well.

You are mistaken. England will rely on test specialists even in future

Butler was a prodigy it was a matter of time before he cracked test cricket. I am not sure Roy will become a successful test opener. Given his lack of defensive technique, he will most probably end up like hales

 

[Mamoon]

You are mistaken. England will rely on test specialists even in future

Butler was a prodigy it was a matter of time before he cracked test cricket. I am not sure Roy will become a successful test opener. Given his lack of defensive technique, he will most probably end up like hales

England’s cricket is evolving. Most of their new generation players are multi-format players. Even their next great fast bowler (Archer) is an all-format player.

 

[amvbfm]

Certainly not. Almost all of our test specialists are worth continuing with, at least until we find better replacements.

 

[gazza619]

Certainly not. Almost all of our test specialists are worth continuing with, at least until we find better replacements.

How do you know if a replacement is not a better replacement until tried? Our oldies will flop in Australia no doubt about that so might as well give exposure to new players.

 

[Blistering Barnacle]

How do you know if a replacement is not a better replacement until tried? Our oldies will flop in Australia no doubt about that so might as well give exposure to new players.

Seems like you're arguing they are poor players. That's a separate issue to arguing about test specialists.

 

[gazza619]

Seems like you're arguing they are poor players. That's a separate issue to arguing about test specialists.

Both points are connected. If the test specialists were exceptional then there would be no issue. I am suggesting that time is up to give a ride to above average test specialists.

This will help us in not only in test cricket but also ODI cricket.

 

[hur rizvi]

England’s cricket is evolving. Most of their new generation players are multi-format players. Even their next great fast bowler (Archer) is an all-format player.

Archer is an round talent but plunkett for instance is not good enough for test cricket

Wood has many weak points in his test game. Woakes is good but not Anderson level good

 

[big_gamer007]

Play your best players in any format. So a test 11 should have best 11 test players irrespective of they play LOI or not.

 

[Captain caveman]

England’s cricket is evolving. Most of their new generation players are multi-format players. Even their next great fast bowler (Archer) is an all-format player.

Archer will be useless in tests!
All he can do is bowl fast and slow bouncers and bowl yorkers, these are easily negated in tests, where you do not need to score off every ball!!
He can't swing or seam the ball, which is required in tests.

 

[amvbfm]

How do you know if a replacement is not a better replacement until tried? Our oldies will flop in Australia no doubt about that so might as well give exposure to new players.

I agree that young players should be given chances but continuing with existing players and giving chances to new players doesn't need to be mutually exclusive. The real issue with us is lack of clear planning and selection and our collective love for complete overhauls. Teams are built through continuity where new players are systematically integrated rather than through trigger happy overhauls. If the goal is to produce consistent results and win games and not just remain caught up in a cycle of chopping and changing, you simply have to play your best XI regardless of their age, format etc. A discriminatory selection process like the one suggested by you is certainly not a good idea. Why single out test specialists for replacement? Replace anyone who doesn't perform well regardless of who they are, as long as there are performance based reasons for doing so. What you are suggesting basically implies that we should overhaul our test team (regardless of whether there is a need to do so) to improve our one day team. Doesn't make any sense to me unless our entire focus is on ODI cricket.

 

[Captain caveman]

Pakistan should not only discard test specialist, it should discard tests!!
Time to move on from this 19th century torture, cynically refered to as a sport!!

 

[amvbfm]

Archer will be useless in tests!
All he can do is bowl fast and slow bouncers and bowl yorkers, these are easily negated in tests, where you do not need to score off every ball!!
He can't swing or seam the ball, which is required in tests.

While I agree that he will probably not be the sort of game changing bowler in tests that most people think he will be, he is certainly far from being useless. His pace and bounce make him a perfect foil for Anderson, Broad and Woakes and will lend diversity to an otherwise one dimensional English bowling attack.

 

[Hasan]

Still recall fans calling for Misbah and Younis to be dropped for the test side. But fortunately they were not and both played a critical role in taking Pakistan to the 1 ranked side in the world.

So to answer your question, no. Foolish of the highest order would result in players of Azhar and Asad experience and skills be dropped.

 

[Rellu_Katta]

There are only 3 test specialists and i think there always will be atleast 3/4 surviving purely on test basis

Yasir Shah is an abs shame in LOI... so is Ashwin ( not vs Yasir but if Ashwin is compared to Kuldeep/Chahal then yes Ashwin is shame in LOI now) so is anderson n broad n jennings n foakes

Abbas is a must in my XI but he isnt going to be in to 15 bowlers for me in LOI

so boards need to live with it


i would have dropped Asad Shafiq a long long time ago... he is only playing to satisfy the egos of some racists guys like Tanvir Ahmad and Rashid Latif .. otherwise he doesnt deserve a chance....

Azhar Ali needs to stay.. i think his retirement from LOI has given him more clarity and he is performing better since then (i am talking abt his county stint) and he will perform... problem is we need him at 4 now, which could be ideal for him....

Shan Masood
Imam ul Haq
Harris Sohail
Azhar Ali
Babar Azam

sounds like a solid top 5 . for no6 def get some1 new... abid ali maybe ? ship might have sailed for Fawad Alam ... but cant see anyone else

P.S Butler is and will remain a failure in test and so will be Roy ... a little , tiny bit swing at lords and Roy looked like a club level batsmen.... it was a painful iinings lol

 

[Captain caveman]

While I agree that he will probably not be the sort of game changing bowler in tests that most people think he will be, he is certainly far from being useless. His pace and bounce make him a perfect foil for Anderson, Broad and Woakes and will lend diversity to an otherwise one dimensional English bowling attack.

Anderson and broad are coming to the end of their careers. Woakes like amir, is only good in english conditions. England will struggle in tests, in the near future, as they have no quality upcoming pace bowlers!!

 

[topspin]

Test specialists are becoming a thing of the past.

We have seen Warner and Buttler picked for their respective test teams following success in T20s, let alone ODIs.

White ball cricket performances have already begun taking precedence for the teams that have adopted the modern game. The best example of such a side are England and I'm sure in the Ashes, we will get to see the likes of Roy and Archer become part of that playing XI.

Now imagine if the head coach of the Pakistan team was a Mohsin Khan, Waqar Younis and etc, can you imagine with their lack of cricketing aptitude to grasp this concept? This is why it's imperative our head coach understands the modern game and the hard truth is you won't find someone in Pakistan who is competent enough to do what it takes to adapt. Misbah was also guilty of this during his four year stint as ODI captain.

 

[amvbfm]

Anderson and broad are coming to the end of their careers. Woakes like amir, is only good in english conditions. England will struggle in tests, in the near future, as they have no quality upcoming pace bowlers!!

Wasn't commenting about the strength or weakness of the English bowling, just pointing out how Archer might be effective for them in the current setup.

 

[giri26]

Leave all the fancy terms, Pakistan just need good players. There are some players who play just Tests and vice versa but they have to be good enough to play at that level. Pakistan in Tests in recent times have been really poor. Losing Test series in UAE to Sri Lanka and New Zealand being the low. The batting needs a serious look and good players who can score runs with consistency need to be given preference.

 

[shah_1]

Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq need to be discared soon, both have been garbage since YK and Misbah retired. Time to select Saad Ali, Usman Salahuddinn or Saud Shakeel in the team

 

[re82h]

As mentioned above Azhar Ali & Asad Shafiq are useless players now so they probably should't be playing test cricket now.

BUT i would not mix formats. Batsmen who can bat long should be played in test cricket regardless of amount of test matches we play not crash bang wallop type.

 

[amvbfm]

Test specialists are becoming a thing of the past.

We have seen Warner and Buttler picked for their respective test teams following success in T20s, let alone ODIs.

White ball cricket performances have already begun taking precedence for the teams that have adopted the modern game. The best example of such a side are England and I'm sure in the Ashes, we will get to see the likes of Roy and Archer become part of that playing XI.

Now imagine if the head coach of the Pakistan team was a Mohsin Khan, Waqar Younis and etc, can you imagine with their lack of cricketing aptitude to grasp this concept? This is why it's imperative our head coach understands the modern game and the hard truth is you won't find someone in Pakistan who is competent enough to do what it takes to adapt. Misbah was also guilty of this during his four year stint as ODI captain.

I don't think that's true. True test specialists will always remain a part of the game as long as test cricket is played. You certainly can't replace someone like Cook with Roy or Pujara with Rahul. Discarding specialists requires the simplistic assumption that the game is played the same way across formats which we all know is not true. Test cricket remains and will remain a different format from LOIs where pure skills, technique and temperament will always trump innovation and aggression.

While there will always be world class players who will transcend formats and play equally well in all, there will also be players whose skills will be better suited to the longer format and not playing them in tests just because they don't play LOIs will be utter foolishness.

 

[JibranAnsari]

We play around 35 to 40 days of test cricket per year and around 35 to 40 days of odis and t20 per year. Don't think discarding test specialists will be a good idea unless we find good cricketers who can play the two long formats equally successfully.

 

[topspin]

I don't think that's true. True test specialists will always remain a part of the game as long as test cricket is played. You certainly can't replace someone like Cook with Roy or Pujara with Rahul. Discarding specialists requires the simplistic assumption that the game is played the same way across formats which we all know is not true. Test cricket remains and will remain a different format from LOIs where pure skills, technique and temperament will always trump innovation and aggression.

While there will always be world class players who will transcend formats and play equally well in all, there will also be players whose skills will be better suited to the longer format and not playing them in tests just because they don't play LOIs will be utter foolishness.

Nope it reflects the era of flatter of test wickets and consequently with batsmen scoring their runs at a faster rate, with the aim of forcing a result. The current test game is a contrast as to the one of the 70s/80s/90s which was dominated by drawn tests and more friendly bowling conditions.

Also you can replace Cook because he's retired.

 

[Captain caveman]

Wasn't commenting about the strength or weakness of the English bowling, just pointing out how Archer might be effective for them in the current setup.

Archer will definetly play tests for england, lets see how he does.

 

[amvbfm]

Nope it reflects the era of flatter of test wickets and consequently with batsmen scoring their runs at a faster rate, with the aim of forcing a result. The current test game is a contrast as to the one of the 70s/80s/90s which was dominated by drawn tests and more friendly bowling conditions.

Also you can replace Cook because he's retired.

Strike rates have gone up (albeit not as drastically as some people here claim - they have gone up from mid 40's to early 50's) but your conclusion that since run rates have gone up, we should recruit all LOI players in place of test specialist fails to take into account the extra runs that those test players contribute and the match shaping innings that they play in tough circumstances. As much as conditions have changed test cricket is still a totally different game from LOIs.

 

[topspin]

Strike rates have gone up (albeit not as drastically as some people here claim - they have gone up from mid 40's to early 50's) but your conclusion that since run rates have gone up, we should recruit all LOI players in place of test specialist fails to take into account the extra runs that those test players contribute and the match shaping innings that they play in tough circumstances. As much as conditions have changed test cricket is still a totally different game from LOIs.

The increase in strike rates are still significant (15-20%) and I would say given how the game has revolved of late, you need batsmen who can do both: grind out against good bowling and adapt to tough batting conditions with solid defensive prowess, but also have the proficiency to attack and score runs all round the wicket on the front and back foot.

Strokeless wonders will get exposed and we've seen that from the likes of Azhar Ali (before and after his peak). Pujara has always been good in India but away from home he was inept (prior to his current peak of form) and I also expect his career to come crashing down soon once his purple patch is over.

Alistair Cook debuted in 2006, so the demand for a batsman who can play attritional cricket was still there in 2000s. I consider him to be a test great but after his peak, even he's had his struggles in the mid to late 2010s, even though he wasn't that old (being in his early 30s). Even now he's only 34 but has had to retire because all these limited batsmen (in terms of stroke making) eventually get exposed after they've hit their purple patch.

The reality is test sides cannot just rely on batsmen who are defensively very strong but don't have the shots in their armour, to counter-attack and/or capitalise on a position of strength with good attacking batting. This is why going forward more and more players will be fast-tracked from success in white ball cricket, whether it be from T20 leagues (with Buttler last year) or from ODIs/T20Is (Jason Roy and etc). We need to make peace with the modern demands of red ball cricket regardless of whether we think it is for the better or worse.

 

[amvbfm]

The increase in strike rates are still significant (15-20%) and I would say given how the game has revolved of late, you need batsmen who can do both: grind out against good bowling and adapt to tough batting conditions with solid defensive prowess, but also have the proficiency to attack and score runs all round the wicket on the front and back foot.

Strokeless wonders will get exposed and we've seen that from the likes of Azhar Ali (before and after his peak). Pujara has always been good in India but away from home he was inept (prior to his current peak of form) and I also expect his career to come crashing down soon once his purple patch is over.

Alistair Cook debuted in 2006, so the demand for a batsman who can play attritional cricket was still there in 2000s. I consider him to be a test great but after his peak, even he's had his struggles in the mid to late 2010s, even though he wasn't that old (being in his early 30s). Even now he's only 34 but has had to retire because all these limited batsmen (in terms of stroke making) eventually get exposed after they've hit their purple patch.

The reality is test sides cannot just rely on batsmen who are defensively very strong but don't have the shots in their armour, to counter-attack and/or capitalise on a position of strength with good attacking batting. This is why going forward more and more players will be fast-tracked from success in white ball cricket, whether it be from T20 leagues (with Buttler last year) or from ODIs/T20Is (Jason Roy and etc). We need to make peace with the modern demands of red ball cricket regardless of whether we think it is for the better or worse.

You are negating your own point by describing grinding as a quality for a test batsman. The LOI specialists you are talking about rarely have that ability. The description you have given is that of a world class batsman capable of handling all conditions, someone like Kohli or Williamson and there are very few of them.

Similarly the point about getting exposed is equally if not more applicable to LOI specialists who usually rely totally on their hand eye coordination and once the reflexes slow down with age they are rarely able to perform. A test specialist will still have his technique and temperament and will keep on producing solid innings. Look at Cook, Dravid, Chanderpaul. Even Azhar is still not over the hill as most people think. But play Fakhar in the test team and you will see how easily he gets exposed (even got exposed in ODIs but perfectly fits your criteria). Still think strokeless wonders are way better than runless wonders picked on the basis of LOI performances. As for Pujara, he has been the third most prolific scorer for India in away games during the last decade. Don't see how that is a mean feat.

You can go with LOI experts but then it will be pretty much a revolving door policy as you certainly can't expect LOI specialists to perform consistently at the test level and you will have to keep chopping and changing. Test specialists are there for a reason and for a specific role. They aren't there to play strokes, that is the job of the other batsmen. Guess only time will tell which one of us is right.

 

[hashimafzal]

I have no clue why people are so adamant on dropping Azhar... While he didn't have the best tour of SA, he's still our best test batsman in the side.

 

[The_Odd_One]

You can carry test specialists if they are really good in the longer form of Cricket, e.g. Pujara, Ashwin, Philander, etc.

However, there is no point in filling your team with useless test specialists like Azhar, Asad, and Yasir.

 

[Hasan]

Azhar Ali and Asad Shafiq need to be discared soon, both have been garbage since YK and Misbah retired. Time to select Saad Ali, Usman Salahuddinn or Saud Shakeel in the team

The same was said for Younis and Misbah after Inzy and Yousuf retired!

 

[shah_1]

The same was said for Younis and Misbah after Inzy and Yousuf retired!

Since retirement(it's been two years)

Azhar Ali averages 28.04
Asad Shafiq avearges 37.16

Don't think Younis Khan and Misbah performed that badly ever for that long. Asad and Azhar will never be dropped in the next series, but if they keep on performing like this then their days are numbered,

 

[indianpanacea]

Yes...just have specialist test openers and latter ODI players can b drafted in test line..
I genuinely feel babar,imam and haris can b part of test on full time
Shaan
Sami aslam
Asad shafiq
Haris sohail
Babar
Imam ul haq

 

[zamana]

Play your best players in any format. So a test 11 should have best 11 test players irrespective of they play LOI or not.

That is a sensible approach. Test cricket is very different from ODI. If you are a good ODI player it does not equate to being good in Tests. Test cricket requires excellent technique and temperament. If an ODI player has this qualifications and there is an opening in the Test Team , he could be promoted . This should not mean that the Test players should be discarded to accommodate untested and potential players without the requisite need.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

Did having test specialists achieve anything for Pakistan? Did it make us a top test team?

Pakistan plays 7-8 test matches every year and this is when the likes Azhar Ali, Asad Shafiq and Yasir Shah cash in their pay cheques. I have seen so many times that in a 2-3 test series a player would play well in one innings and this will book his place for the next test series in 4 months time.

Would it not be a good idea if Pakistan discards test players who have no contribution to make in ODIs? Unless of course if a player is exceptional then I am okay with it.

This would give exposure to our next breed of players who would mature in quick time by playing test cricket and thereby also become quality ODI players. I genuinely believe that the Babar Azam became a better ODI player by playing more and more test cricket.

I think this should be the way forward as the ultimate aim has to be 2023 WC. I can already think of half a dozen young players who are for international cricket.

We desperately need to play more test matches. Even if we play it against teams like Ireland, Bangladesh, Sri lanka etc.

Since we are playing so few test matches, some players are literally staying on, by playing meaningless innings (once in a blue moon).

Asad Shafiq is top of this list, he was made centuries and keeps a decent average, But he never wins a match. Part of the reason is he can't handle Pressure. He falls with the crowd making a bad situation worse.

Azhar Ali, He had a dip in form lately. But Azhar has won Test matches. Like the chase on 5th day to win against Srilanka. But lately he also has turned into a 4th innings bunny who collapses under pressure. But he is still useful for the side. And can make a strong comeback.

Shan Masood, Useless cricketer in the side due to connections. Has recently made a couple of 50s against a weak South African Side that lost even to Srilanka. Now Shan Masood's backers think he is set for another 10 test matches. He is Asif Ali of Test cricket, get rid of him. Please drop him and bring in Abid Ali as a test opener.

Yasir Shah he can be our trump card in UAE but we need a serious spin replacement in other countries. Since Pakistan normally plays a 2nd spinner in UAE we can pair him up with Shahdab or a new Spinner.

Mohd Abbas, he had a great start to his career, but suddenly stopped being as effective. He is now playing county cricket, lets see if he becomes a complete bowler otherwise Wahab, Shaheen and Amir can easily fill the 3 spots in the test side.

 

[Markhor]

The problem isn't picking Test specialists, but the specialists we are picking.

We keep selecting mental midgets Azhar and Shafiq who cannot handle the responsibility of being senior pros, and expect different results.