The England approach to batting in T20Is will never work for Pakistan

[Saj]

We don't have Buttlers, Roys, Hales, Livingstones, Moeens etc.

Heck England have left out Duckett, yet Pakistan is desperate for that type of player in its starting XI.

 

[Cric1234]

We don't have Buttlers, Roys, Hales, Livingstones, Moeens etc.

Heck England have left out Duckett, yet Pakistan is desperate for that type of player in its starting XI.

When you play a World Cup in another country especially outside Asia then something different has to be in the plan of action when it’s clear the current tactics won’t be good enough unless there are low scoring matches consistently.

Bringing in a few aggressive batsmen from domestic cricket who teams wouldn’t have seen much of recently can help win an important match because it’s clear the current batting lineup won’t be able to unless games became low scoring.

 

[Bilal7]

It really does make you wonder why none of these geniuses who such good ideas to improve the team were never hired by the PCB. You guys ever sent your resumes in? Maybe then we'll see some random domestic batsmen thrown in to open the batting in Australia so we revert back to the 20/3 starts that were so common a few years ago and then Iftikhar has to channel his inner Misbah and drag us to 130.

Pakistan are going to play like Pakistan. Babar and Rizwan will get a 50-runs partnership at the top, if not a century stand and then it is the responsibility of the guys coming in to hit out or get out.

Do we have the personnel for our gameplan to succeed? I think so, especially with Fakhar fit yet again.

3) Fakhar
4) Haider
5) Asif

With Iftikhar, Shadab and Nawaz used up or down the order depending on the match situation. This is probably our best middle order with no place for Masood or Khushdil.

However, they might want to drop Asif and play Wasim in order to strengthen the bowling, which is also not a bad idea, especially since Wasim can bat.

 

[Cric1234]

It really does make you wonder why none of these geniuses who such good ideas to improve the team were never hired by the PCB. You guys ever sent your resumes in? Maybe then we'll see some random domestic batsmen thrown in to open the batting in Australia so we revert back to the 20/3 starts that were so common a few years ago and then Iftikhar has to channel his inner Misbah and drag us to 130.

Pakistan are going to play like Pakistan. Babar and Rizwan will get a 50-runs partnership at the top, if not a century stand and then it is the responsibility of the guys coming in to hit out or get out.

Do we have the personnel for our gameplan to succeed? I think so, especially with Fakhar fit yet again.

3) Fakhar
4) Haider
5) Asif

With Iftikhar, Shadab and Nawaz used up or down the order depending on the match situation. This is probably our best middle order with no place for Masood or Khushdil.

However, they might want to drop Asif and play Wasim in order to strengthen the bowling, which is also not a bad idea, especially since Wasim can bat.

You don’t need random domestic batsmen you need players with previous international experience who can play aggressively upfront to come in and give the team some lift as the current line up isn’t going anywhere.

It’s all become too predictable and they even tried Haider who hasn’t found his real position as of yet and is still developing as a batsman to fix the middle order why not Babar dropping himself into the middle order and letting someone else open.

Basically the team balance is all wrong having two steady batsmen open followed by more steady batsmen will lead to the team falling short in high scoring matches aggression is the name of the game in T20s throughout the batting lineup there needs to be aggressive batsmen of which there are none currently.

 

[TheSultan]

It really does make you wonder why none of these geniuses who such good ideas to improve the team were never hired by the PCB. You guys ever sent your resumes in? Maybe then we'll see some random domestic batsmen thrown in to open the batting in Australia so we revert back to the 20/3 starts that were so common a few years ago and then Iftikhar has to channel his inner Misbah and drag us to 130.

Pakistan are going to play like Pakistan. Babar and Rizwan will get a 50-runs partnership at the top, if not a century stand and then it is the responsibility of the guys coming in to hit out or get out.

Do we have the personnel for our gameplan to succeed? I think so, especially with Fakhar fit yet again.

3) Fakhar
4) Haider
5) Asif

With Iftikhar, Shadab and Nawaz used up or down the order depending on the match situation. This is probably our best middle order with no place for Masood or Khushdil.

However, they might want to drop Asif and play Wasim in order to strengthen the bowling, which is also not a bad idea, especially since Wasim can bat.

You seem a real worrier mate, what are you so scared of? 20-3. If it’s 20-3 then that means at least one of your Babar and Riz will be out too if they drop down one spade, And 3 wickets in a t20 is not that big a deal as you have TEN wickets to play with. You don’t get bonus points for keeping wickets in hand.

You can handle a low performing middle order if your openers go hard. Look at the last England v Aus match. Englands middle order didn’t do particularly well but because the openers gave such a fast start, a 200+ score was inevitable.

I have no problem with babar and Riz opening if they go hard and maximise the powerplay - it’s there for a reason. They have FAILED in the powerplay repeatedly. We’ve got our priorities all wrong. We define success in a powerplay based on how many wickets we’ve lost and ooooh we’ve avoided the 20-3.

No one is asking for wholesale changes, they are saying give yourself a chance to take advantage of the powerplay. If babar and riz are unwilling to risk their average then send someone who will show that intent.

When we name players to play at the top, all of you safety first merchants want the perfect batsman. T20 is not about the perfect batsman. None of England’s top 6 would make the test team as a pure batsman apart from stokes.

T20 is not rocket science. The batsmen are given 6 overs for a reason. If you don’t have the quality or the guys to hit out, you send someone dispensable who can be willing to take the risk. If he fails, you’ve only lost ONE wicket out of TEN in a TWENTY over match and then babar and Riz do their job that they’re very good at playing risk free percentage cricket.

Honestly, you don’t need to be cricket historian or a strategic genius to figure out something that basic.

 

[Bilal7]

You seem a real worrier mate, what are you so scared of? 20-3. If it’s 20-3 then that means at least one of your Babar and Riz will be out too if they drop down one spade, And 3 wickets in a t20 is not that big a deal as you have TEN wickets to play with. You don’t get bonus points for keeping wickets in hand.

You can handle a low performing middle order if your openers go hard. Look at the last England v Aus match. Englands middle order didn’t do particularly well but because the openers gave such a fast start, a 200+ score was inevitable.

I have no problem with babar and Riz opening if they go hard and maximise the powerplay - it’s there for a reason. They have FAILED in the powerplay repeatedly. We’ve got our priorities all wrong. We define success in a powerplay based on how many wickets we’ve lost and ooooh we’ve avoided the 20-3.

No one is asking for wholesale changes, they are saying give yourself a chance to take advantage of the powerplay. If babar and riz are unwilling to risk their average then send someone who will show that intent.

When we name players to play at the top, all of you safety first merchants want the perfect batsman. T20 is not about the perfect batsman. None of England’s top 6 would make the test team as a pure batsman apart from stokes.

T20 is not rocket science. The batsmen are given 6 overs for a reason. If you don’t have the quality or the guys to hit out, you send someone dispensable who can be willing to take the risk. If he fails, you’ve only lost ONE wicket out of TEN in a TWENTY over match and then babar and Riz do their job that they’re very good at playing risk free percentage cricket.

Honestly, you don’t need to be cricket historian or a strategic genius to figure out something that basic.

Yes, it's definitely very basic which is why the people paid to create our strategy haven't figured it out but some genius on a forum has seen the path to our success in his crystal ball.

- So in cricket, it's usually the top-6 or 7 that are usually the only batters of any repute. Not sure why you keep capitalizing TEN as if Naseem Shah is going to win us matches with the bat every game.

- The last Aus vs Eng match showed exactly where Pakistan is lacking. They don't have a middle-order and instead of dismantling what they do have, we should keep trying to make that middle-order work. Yes, 20/3 is terrible in T20s and teams are not going to come back from that especially during World Cup games.

- Babar and Rizwan use the PP to get themselves set and find their touch and they have gone on to win us matches with this approach. It's absolutely dumb to send some hack to open the batting when they will fail more often than not and give the opposition the momentum and confidence they need to hurt Pakistan further.

 

[Shafi]

If that is the case tell your bowlers restrict teams around 100-130 and play safety first.

 

[daytrader]

Did you read what I wrote? If you want to go there with the domestic stats then sharjeel is the obvious choice. You brought up stats so there was your response.

I would question if he really is a TTF

Now however, if you bothered to read the rest of my post I wasn’t necessarily advocating for Sharjeel to come in, but I was talking about having a strategy to change things up and get someone a bit braver at the top of the order.

So stop the excuses and this mediocre mentality and open your mind that a change might do the team good.

It doesn’t make you any less of a babar riz lover, just asking you to think a bit further.

Ok so tell me who are these bravehearts we should have opening? Are they striking consistently at 130 plus? Can they last long enough to put up 20 runs on the board?

If we have better options, let's experiment when the time is right. But right now the Rizwan/Babar combo is working. They give us the start we need and give us the luxury to play all the sloggers we have.

Advocating change is great but there's a time and place for it. And it's definitely not two weeks before a WC.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Ok so tell me who are these bravehearts we should have opening? Are they striking consistently at 130 plus? Can they last long enough to put up 20 runs on the board?

If we have better options, let's experiment when the time is right. But right now the Rizwan/Babar combo is working. They give us the start we need and give us the luxury to play all the sloggers we have.

Advocating change is great but there's a time and place for it. And it's definitely not two weeks before a WC.

Do you think they will change the top order two weeks AFTER the World Cup?

Or are you just wishing that this wish should be wished away?

 

[daytrader]

Do you think they will change the top order two weeks AFTER the World Cup?

Or are you just wishing that this wish should be wished away?

I think we've all seen cricket long enough to remember the days of our opening batting woes. After a long long time we have a solid pair. Yea they're not perfect but no one needs to be. They're still world beaters. I would stick with them until they stop performing. Maybe experiment to have a back up option, but that's about it. Will be really difficult to find better performers than these two

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I think we've all seen cricket long enough to remember the days of our opening batting woes. After a long long time we have a solid pair. Yea they're not perfect but no one needs to be. They're still world beaters. I would stick with them until they stop performing. Maybe experiment to have a back up option, but that's about it. Will be really difficult to find better performers than these two

Then be a man and present it this way.

Instead of saying that we will try other things after World Cup.

We won't try any other things after the World Cup, because you are content with how the team structure is.

If they win the World Cup with this team structure and psyche, I will be the first to congratulate you (I accept I am wrong if I am).

But if they continue to bottle every single major tournament, will you be man enough to admit, maybe, just maybe, we have got it wrong?

 

[daytrader]

Then be a man and present it this way.

Instead of saying that we will try other things after World Cup.

We won't try any other things after the World Cup, because you are content with how the team structure is.

If they win the World Cup with this team structure and psyche, I will be the first to congratulate you (I accept I am wrong if I am).

But if they continue to bottle every single major tournament, will you be man enough to admit, maybe, just maybe, we have got it wrong?

That's kind of an unfair wager Dr. Sahib. I get one team and you get the other 11? So if England don't win the WC, does that mean they got it wrong?

Surely there's more than one approach to success and we have an equal chance as others with our approach. We have 7/11 confirmed starters, so yes to some extent I'm content with the structure of what this team is shaping out to be. If we can figure out the remaining 4 pieces, we will definitely be World beaters.